THE  LIBRARIES 


a.\ 


t7> 


"^t^ffi  ^  ri7i>^ 


/■•^o,  ^  / 


^af 


SX^O/y. 


VIEWS 


IN 


THEOLOGY 


BY 


LYMAN  BEECHER,  D.  D. 

PRESIDENT   OF    LANE    THEOLOaiCAL    SEMINARY. 


PUBLISHED  BY  REQUEST 


THE  SYNOD  OF  CINCINNATI. 


CINCINNATI: 

PUBLISHED  BY  TRUMAN  AND  SMITH. 

NEW    YORK: 

L  E  A  V  I  T  T,    LORD     AND    CO. 

183  6. 


Entered  according  to  act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1836, 

BY     TP.UMAN     AND     SMITH, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  for  the  District  Court  of  Ohio, 


CINCINNATI: 

PRINTED  AT  THE  C.'NCJNNATI  JOURNAL  OFFICE. 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS 


I.  INTRODUCTION. 

II.  NATURAL    ABILITY. 

III.  MORAL    ABILITY. 

IV.  ORIGINAL   SIN. 

V.  TOTAL  DEPRAVITY. 
VI.  REGENERATION. 


IJMTRODUCTION. 


TO  THE  SYNOD  OF  CINCINNATI. 

Beloted  Brethren: 

I  AVAii.  myself  of  the  earliest  opportunity  permitted  by 
prior  engagements,  to  comply  with  your  request,  '  that  1 
would  publish  at  as  early  a  day  as  possible,  a  conc.se  state- 
ment of  the  argument  and  design  of  my  Sermon  on  Native 
Depravity,  and  of  my  views  of  total  depravity,  orig.na  sin, 
and  regeneration,  agreeably  to  my  declaration  ^d  explana- 
tion  before  Synod.'     I  am  cheered  in  this  attempt  by  the 
consideration  that  the  Synod  '  saw  nothing  in  my  views,  as 
explained  by  myself,  to  justify  any  suspicion  of  unsound- 
ness  in  the  faith,'  and  expressed  their  entire  satisfaction 
with  the  terms  of  my  acquiescence  in  their  decision,  and 
their  belief  that  nothing  insuperable  remained  to  prevent 
my    usefulness,  or  impair  confidence  in  me    as  a  minis  er 
Tf  the  gospel  in  the  Presbyterian  church.     I  am  cheered 
b  cause   though  my  doctrinal  opinions  have  been  unchanged 
from  tb    beginning,  and  have  been  published  often,  and  are 
^accordance,  as  I  suppose,  with  the  received  exposi  ion 
of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and  the  Bible,  and  have  seemed  to 
receive  some  token  of  Divine  approbation,  and  as  e termty 
approaches  are  increasingly  precious  to  my  own  soul,  U  is 
nevertheless  true  that  I  had  fallen  under  suspicions.    The 
causes  of  these  suspicions,  I  shall  not  stop  to  explain  ;  nor 
am  I  disposed  to  regard  them  with  entire  disapprobation.    In 
one  view,  I  regard  them  with  pleasure,  as  evidence  of  a 


viii  INTRODUCTION. 

wakeful  zeal  for  the  truth,  for  want  of  which  in  a  genera- 
tion past,  innovations  and  heresies  were  permitted  insidiously 
to  invade  portions  of  the  church. 

But  who  does  not  know  that  upon  the  very  confines  of 
honest  zeal  for  the  truth,  lie  the  territories  of  twilight,  and 
suspicion,  and  rumor,  and  fear,  and  whisperings,  and  false 
accusations,  by  which  confidence  is  undermined,  and  very 
friends  separated  ? 

The  strength  of  the  church,  under  God,  depends  on  con- 
centrated action  ;  and  this,  like  mercantile  credit,*  depends 
on  confidence.  Whatever,  therefore,  propagates  distrust 
among  brethren,  creates  a  panic,  like  the  failure  of  capitalists 
in  a  great  city.  Of  this,  the  enemy  of  souls  is  aware  ;  and 
has  never  failed,  when  the  power  of  the  church  became  too 
formidable  to  be  resisted,  to  ease  him  of  his  adversaries,  by 
dividing  them.  Thus  the  sacramental  controversy  divided 
the  reformers,  and  the  contentions  of  the  Independents  and 
Presbyterians  lost  the  vantage  ground  in  the  commonwealth, 
and  brought  back  monarchy,  dissoluteness,  and  irrcligion. 

In  this  nation,  for  a  long  time,  the  kindred  denominations, 
Congregational  and  Presbyterian,  lived  in  peace  and  good  fel- 
lowship, and  were  doing  valiantly  their  part  in  filling  the 
land  with  churches  and  temples,  and  pastors  and  revivals, 
and  seemed  to  bid  defiance  to  his  wiles.  But  at  length  the 
storm  has  smitten  us,  and  with  a  fury  proportioned  to  our 
power  of  annoyance  to  the  kingdom  of  darkness.  I  was  not 
unapprised  of  the  beginning  of  this  evil,  when  I  consented  to 
come  into  tbe  Presbyterian  church  ;  but  its  subsequent  devel- 
opments have  indeed  outrun  all  expectation,  and  have 
reached  a  crisis  deeply  afilicting,  humiliating,  and  alarming. 
Extensively,  confidence  has  ceased,  and  misapprehension, 
and  suspicion,  and  alienation,  and  contention  have  entered. 
In  this  condition  of  the  church,  though  pressed  beyond  mea- 
sure by  other  responsibilities,  there  is  no  efi'ort,  or  sacrifice, 
or  self-denial  which  I  would  not  make  joyfully,  to  extend 
correct  information,  allay  suspicion,  extinguish  animosity. 


INrRODUCTION.  jx 

Stop  contention,  and  by  purity  and  peace,  and  concentrated 
action,  make  her  prosperity  like  the  waves  of  the  sea. 

It  will  not  be  easy,  however,  to  illustrate  my  views  on  the 
subjects  named,  in  the  form  of  independent  dissertations, 
without  the  danger  of  alleged  discrepancy.  Nor  do  I  under- 
stand it  to  be  the  wish  of  the  Synod  that  I  should  confine 
myself  to  the  exact  limits  and  language  of  my  defence.  I 
have  chosen,  therefore,  to  follow  the  order,  and  extensively 
the  language  of  my  defence  from  copious  notes,  adding  such 
illustrations  and  topics  as  I  had  prepared,  but  a  regard  to 
brevity  compelled  mc  to  omit.  Making  such  an  exhibition, 
however  as  will,  in  the  best  manner,  answer  the  design  of  the 
Synod,  in  putting  the  community  in  possession  of  my  doc- 
trinal views  on  the  subjects  named. 

I  cannot,  however,  forbear  to  remark,  that  the  necessity  of 
explanation  imposed  on  mc  at  this  time  of  life  by  unfounded 
accusations,  is  not  unlike  calling  on  an  aged  merchant  of 
long-established  reputation,  to  prove  his  honesty,  by  the  exhi- 
bition of  his  books;  or  a  physician  of  age  and  experience,  to 
repel  the  suspicion  of  quackery,  by  publishing  an  account  of 
his  cases  and  his  practice.  I  am  happy,  however,  to  say, 
that  it  is  not  the  fault  of  the  Synod,  that  such  a  necessity 
exists,  and  that  all  which  I  requested  or  hoped,  was  illus- 
trated in  the  kind  and  candid  manner  in  which  the  trial  was 
conducted. 

2 


VIEWS  IN  THEOLOGY 


PRELIMINARY   REMARKS. 

Moderator  : 

It  gives  me  pleasure  to  express  the  confidence 
which  I  feel  in  the  christian  integrity  of  this  court. 
It  is  possible  for  man  to  be  so  biased  by  interest,  or 
Swayed  by  passion,  or  bound  by  party,  as  to  super- 
sede the  vision  of  evidence,  or  its  efficacy,  vAien  it  is 
seen.  But  no  member  of  this  court  has,  I  trust? 
placed  himself  in  this  predicament.  Is  there  one  of 
you  w^ho  would  be  sorry,  should  the  evidence  of  my 
innocence  be  made  to  appear;  who  would  not  rejoice, 
should  he  find  his  suspicions  allayed,  and  his  fears 
averted?  Is  there  a  man  in  this  court  who  w^ould 
not  as  soon  cut  his  hand  off,  as  to  lift  it  against  me 
contrary  to  his  honest  convictions?  Would  any 
thing  be  more  grateful  to  your  heart,  than  to  see  the 
court  united  in  the  acquittal  of  Dr.  Wilson  and  my. 
self,  and  all  of  us  united  in  building  up  the  cause  of 
Christ  in  the  West? 

You  are  aware,  however,  that  integrity  of  purpose 
does  not  guaranty  infallibility  of  judgment;  and  that 
rumors,  and  suspicions,  and  prejudgment  from  ex 
parte  hearsay  testimony,  w^hich  have  no  place  in  the 
decisions  of  this  tribunal,  are  extremely  apt,  through 
human   imperfection,  to   thrust   themselves   in    the 


12  PRELIMINARY  REMARKS. 

Judgment  not  infallible.  The  Church  bound  to  be  kind. 

scales,  and  bias  seriously  the  judgment.  This  per- 
verting influence  of  preconceived  opinion,  formed 
upon  testimony  disallowed  by  law,  is  so  common  and 
so  powerful,  that  in  criminal  cases  in  civil  courts,  no 
man  is  permitted  to  sit  in  judgment  who  has  formed 
an  opinion  touching  the  merits  of  the  case.  In  eccle- 
siastical trials  for  heresy  at  the  present  time,  there  is 
a  peculiar  liability  to  the  evil  bias  of  a  prejudgment, 
when  accusations  long  and  loud  have  filled  the  land, 
and  roused  suspicion,  and  created  panic,  and  under- 
mined confidence,  and  multiplied  aggression  and 
exasperation,  and  brought  on  the  symptoms  in  our 
church  of  an  approaching  dissolution.  Zeal  for  the 
truth,  and  divided  responsibility  of  numbers,  and  the 
fear  of  suspicion  of  heresy,  if  any  falter,  may  em- 
bolden men  to  act  upon  impressions  made  by  testi- 
mony out  of  court  which  is  not  entitled  to  the  weight 
of  a  straw.  It  is  this  extrajudicial  evidence,  without 
the  forms  of  the  law,  which  is  invading  the  life  and 
reputation  of  our  citizens,  and  shaking  the  founda- 
tions of  our  republic. 

This  summary  justice,  should  it  enter  the  church, 
would  annihilate  all  protection  against  prejudice  and 
passion,  and  perpetrate  injustice  as  much  more  detes- 
table than  civil  outrage,  as  the  church  is  bound  by  a 
special  obligation  to  be  kind,  and  unimpassioned,  and 
impartial;  and  whenever  the  time  comes  that  inno- 
cence and  evidence  are  no  guarantee  of  a  ministers 
reputation  in  the  church,  the  day  of  her  dissolution 
is  at  the  door. 

I  have  no  disposition  to  interrogate  the  members 


PRELIMINARY  REMARKS.  13 

Local  phraseology,  no  evidence  of  heresy. 

of  this  Synod,  whether  they  have  formed  an  opinion 
touching  the  merits  of  this  appeal.  But  you,  breth- 
ren, have  a  right  to  ask  your  ou^n  heart  how  it  is, 
and  to  watch  and  pray  that  you  do  not  permit  a  kind 
of  evidence  to  prevail,  which  all  laws,  human  and 
divine,  reject,  as  tending  to  anarchy  and  despotism. 

I  have  only  to  request,  then,  that  you  will  not 
decide  this  appeal  on  the  ground  of  any  impressions 
from  biases  or  prejudices  produced  out  of  court.  It 
is  here,  by  evidence  to  be  produced  in  court,  under 
the  guardianship  of  our  excellent  system  of  discipline 
and  laws  of  evidence,  that  you  will  enlighten  your 
understandings  and  decide. 

You  will  be  careful  not  to  ascribe  to  me  opinions 
which  I  never  believed  or  taught,  because  I  may  have 
employed  language  in  another  part  of  the  church, 
which,  to  ears  unaccustomed  to  it,  may  seem  errone- 
ous. If  there  be,  at  the  same  time,  an  obvious  mean- 
ing in  accordance  with  truth  and  my  own  declarations, 
charity  and  equity  alike  forbid  that  I  should  be  denied 
the  benefit  and  meaning  I  claim,  and  be  made  answer- 
able for  that  which  I  disclaim  and  abhor. 

You  will  by  no  means  hold  me  guilty  in  propaga- 
ting opinions  which  you  yourselves  hold  and  teach, 
though  from  difference  of  location  and  education  we 
may  differ  a  little  in  the  terms  employed  to  explain 
and  enforce  them. 

Especially  will  you  be  careful  that  you  do  not 

convict   me   of  heresy  for   opinions   I   have   never 

avowed,  and  have  always  disclaimed,  and  of  which 

there  is  no  evidence  but  suspicion,  in  or  out  of  court 

2* 


14  PRELIMINARY  REMARKS. 

Avowed  and  proved  opinions  should  be  the  ground  of  decision. 

— merely  upon  the  apprehension  that  all  is  not  out — 
that  something  is  covered  and  kept  back,  which,  if  I 
am  spared,  will  by  and  by  come  out  and  punish  the 
church.  Most  assuredly  I  have  no  concealed  here- 
sies.   I  hold  no  opinions  which  I  do  not  avow\    All 

15  OUT.  I  am  determined  to  be  understood,  length 
and  breadth,  and  from  top  to  bottom.  If  my  doc- 
trinal belief  is  adverse  to  the  Confession  of  Faith,  as 
immemorially  explained,  I  am  not  only  not  reluctant 
to  go  out  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  but  I  am  deter- 
mined not  to  stay  in  it. 

Finally,  you  will  be  careful  to  decide  on  the  ground 
of  my  opinions  avowed  and  proved,  and  not  on  the 
ground  of  my  suspected  affinities  with  the  assumed 
heresies  of  other  men.  I  have  refused  always  to  be 
made  accountable  for  the  language  or  opinions  of 
other  men.  For  my  own  statements  I  am  accounta- 
ble. They  are  the  symbols  of  my  faith — whatever 
accords  with  them  I  admit,  and  whatever  differs  from 
them,  I  disclaim  as  having  anything  to  do  with  my 
creed  or  teaching. 

The  comprehensive  charge  against  me  is,  that  I 
hold  and  teach  Pelagian  and  Arminian  doctrines,  in 
respect  to  the  subject  of  Free  Agency,  and  Account- 
ability, Original  Sin,  Total  Depravity,  Regeneration 
and  Christian  Character,  contrary  to  the  Confession, 
and  the  word  of  God. 


NATURAL   ABILITY. 


I  COMMENCE  with  tliG  subjcct  of  Free  Agency,  or  the 
Natural  Ability  of  man,  as  the  foundation  of  obligation 
and  moral  government. 

I  begin  with  this  first,  because  it  is,  as  Dr.  Wilson 
has  said,  'the  hinge  of  the  whole  controversy.'  This 
is  eminently  true.  It  is  the  different  theories  of 
free  agency  and  accountability  which  have,  in  all 
ages,  agitated  the  church.  There  is  not  a  discus- 
sion about  doctrine,  at  this  time,  in  the  Presbyte- 
rian church,  which  does  not  originate  in  discrepant 
opinions  respecting  the  created  constitutional  pow- 
ers of  man  as  a  free  agent,  and  the  grounds  of  moral 
obligation  and  personal  accountability.  Settle  the 
philosophy  of  free  agency — what  are  the  powers 
of  a  free  agent? — how  they  are  put  together,  and 
how  they  operate  in  personal  accountable  action — 
and  controversy  among  all  the  friends  of  Christ  will 
'cease.  It  has  been  often  said,  that  it  never  can  be 
settled.  I  believe  no  such  thing.  The  perplexities 
of  the  schoolmen  are  passing  away,  and  the  symp- 
toms of  approximation  to  an  enlightened  and  settled 
opinion  among  all  evangelical  denominations  are 
beginning   to    appear.      I   have   no    discoveries  to 


16  NATURAL  ABILITY. 


Contrary  opinion — fallen  man  has  no  ability  to  obey  the  gospel. 

publish  on  this  subject — no  favorite  views  of  my 
own  to  propagate.  It  has  been  my  great  desire  to 
finish  my  course  and  keep  the  faith  without  any.  The 
doctrines  of  free  agency  and  natural  ability,  which  I 
hold  and  advocate^  have  been  the  revealed  doctrines 
of  the  church  from  the  beginning.  They  are  not  new 
divinity,  nor  new  school — and  though  I  am  compelled 
to  admit  that  there  are  some  in  the  church  who,  when 
they  are  correctly  explained,  do  not  hold  them;  the 
number  in  my  belief  is  very  small,  who  do  not,  when 
all  misapprehension  is  removed,  believe  the  doctrines 
just  as  I  believe  them.  They  are  also  fundamental 
doctrines,  which,  if  misinterpreted,  will  always  envi- 
ron the  Calvinistic  system  with  invincible  prejudice 
and  odium  without,  and  fill  it  with  fierce  conflicts 
within.  But  when  correctly  understood,  will  pour 
the  stream  of  truth  pure  and  full  and  clear  as  chrys- 
tal,  through  all  tlie  channels  of  the  associated  system. 
The  doctrine  claimed  by  the  prosecutor  as  the  true 
doctrine  of  the  Confession  and  the  Bible  is,  that  to 
fallen  man  there  remains  no  ability  of  any  kind  or 
degree  to  obey  the  gospel — that  though  he  is  a  free 
agent,  it  is  a  free  agency  which  includes  no  ability  of 
any  kind  to  obey  God — and  that  none  is  necessary  to 
constitute  perfect  obligation  to  obey,  and  perfect  ac- 
countability for  disobedience.  That  the  obligation  to 
obey  may  be  infinite,  and  the  punishment  for  disobe- 
dience just  and  eternal,  where  the  obedience  claimed 
is  a  natural  impossibility  as  really  as  the  creation  of 
the  world,  or  the  raising  of  the  dead.  That  I  may 
not  be  supposed  to  mistake  or  misrepresent,  I  quote 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  17 

Dr.  Wilson's  views  of  free  agency. 

my  own  and  the  language  of  Dr.  Wilson,  as  it  occur- 
red before  Presbytery,  and  is  correctly  reported. 

Dr.  B. — '  Dr.  Wilson  has  made  a  distinct  avowal, 
that  free  agency  and  moral  obligation  to  obey  law  do 
not  include  any  ability  of  any  kind,'' 

Dr.  W. — 4  limited  that  avowal  to  man  in  his  fallen 
state.' 

Dr.  B. — 'Yes,  so  I  understood  it.  We  are  talking 
about  man  in  his  fallen  state.  Dr.  Wilson  then  ad- 
mits, that  it  requires  no  ability  of  any  sort  in  fallen 
man,  to  make  him  an  accountable  agent,  and  a  sub- 
ject of  God's  moral  government.' 

Dr.  W. — '  With  respect  to  fallen  man,  /  do,'' 

Now  it  must  be  admitted,  that  in  this  avowal.  Dr. 
Wilson  has  the  merit  of  magnanimous  honesty.  He 
is  fairly  out  on  a  subject  where,  with  many  a  man  for 
an  opponent,  I  should  have  had  to  ferret  him  out. 
There  can  at  least  be  no  doubt  as  to  what  Dr.  Wilson 
does  hold.  If  we  are  to  go  to  Synod,  this  point  will 
be  clear;  and  when  the  report  is  published,  no  man 
can  misunderstand  this  part  of  it.  It  is  seldom  that 
we  meet  a  man  who  would  be  willing  to  march  right 
up  to  such  a  position,  without  winking  or  mystifica- 
tion. But  Dr.  Wilson  has  done  it  unflinchingly  and 
thoroughly.  He  interprets  the  Confession  of  Faith 
and  the  Bible  as  teaching  that  God  may  and  does 
command  men  to  perform  natural  impossibilities;  and 
justly  punish  them  for  ever,  for  not  obeying!  though 
they  could  no  more  obey  than  they  could  create  a 
world!  And  he  has  riveted  the  matter  by  his  mental 
philosophy  of  the  will.     Instead  of  supposing  a  mind 


18  NATURAL  ABILITY. 

Alleged  heresy — possibility  of  obedience. 

with  powers  of  agency,  acting  freely  in  view  of  mo- 
tives, he  supposes  the  will  to  be  entirely  dependent 
on  the  constitution  and  condition  of  body  and  mind, 
and  external  circumstances;  and  controlled  by  these 
as  absolutely  as  straws  on  the  bosom  of  a  river  are 
controlled  by  the  motions  of  the  w^ater."^ 

It  is  claimed,  then,  by  the  prosecutor,  that  the 
Confession  of  Faith  and  the  Bible  teach,  that  fallen 
man  has  no  ability  of  any  kind  to  obey  God,  and  that 
none  is  necessary  to  perfect  obligation  and  the  just 
desert  of  eternal  punishment. 

Now  my  alleged  heresy  consists  in  believing  and 
teaching,  that  the  constitutional  powers  of  a  free 
agent,  including  the  possibility  of  their  correct  exer- 
cise in  obedience,  is  necessary  to  moral  obligation, 
and  reward  and  punishment,  under  the  benevolent, 
w^ise,  and  just  government  of  God. 

And  I  do  hold  and  teach,  that  while  to  a  just  liabil- 
ity io  all  the  consequences  of  the  fall  on  our  constitu- 
tion and  character,  no  ability  of  any  kind  on  our  part 
to  prevent  or  avert  the  curse  existed,  or  was  necessa- 
ry— the  evil  coming  on  us,  his  posterity,  as  the  curse 
of  his  disobedience  through  our  constituted  relation 


*  Dr.  Wilson  has  said  that  the  reporter  has  not  done  him  justice. 
How  ?  Is  not  the  dialogue  verbatim  as  it  took  place?  How  has  in- 
justice been  done?  Does  he  hold,  that  fallen  man  does  possess 
ability  of  sonie  kind  to  obey  as  the  foundation  of  moral  obligation? 
Then  let  him  withdraw  the  charge  of  heresy  on  this  point,  for  this 
is  all  I  hold;  and  if  he  does  not  admit  this,  let  him  state  in  what  re- 
spect he  has  been  misrepresented — for  it  is  a  point  on  which  there 
is  no  middle  ground.  But  Dr.  Wilson  will  not  say  that  his  dialogue, 
as  reported,  is  not  correct. 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  19 

Faculties  of  a  free  agent. 

to  him  as  our  federal  head — yet,  to  a  personal  ac- 
countability to  law  and  desert  of  punishment,  ability 
of  some  kind  or  degree  is  certainly  indispensable. 
Some  possibility  of  obedience  in  adult  man  is  indis- 
pensable to  personal  obligation  and  a  just  punishment 
for  transgression.  Liability  to  be  involved  in  the 
consequences,  natural  and  moral,  of  the  conduct  of 
those  who  represent  us,  is  a  law  of  human  society, 
and  probably  a  law  of  the  social,  intelligent  universe 
— and  as  it  existed  and  operated  in  the  case  of  Adam 
and  his  posterity,  is  doubtless  a  wise,  benevolent, 
and  just  constitution.  But  while  a  liability  to  suffer 
the  consequences  of  another's  conduct,  on  the  ground 
of  a  just  constitution  of  things,  demands  no  ability  to 
avert  the  evil;  accountability  for  personal  transgres- 
sion does  require  some  ability  to  refuse  the  evil  and 
choose  the  good.  There  must  be  the  faculties  and 
powers  of  a  free  agent,  bearing  the  relation  of  possi- 
bility to  right  action.  Faculties  that  can  do  nothing, 
and  powers  that  have  no  relation  of  a  cause  to  its 
effect,  in  possible  action,  are  nonentities.  A  free 
agency  that  cannot  act  at  all  in  any  way,  is  no  free 
agency;  and  a  free  agency,  that  has  no  power  of 
right  action,  is  in  that  respect  no  free  agency.  There 
must  be  an  agent  qualified  to  act  as  he  is  required 
to  act — something  in  his  constitution  which  qualifies 
him  to  be  governed  by  law,  and  rewards  and  punish- 
ments— as  matter  and  animals  are  not  qualified.  There 
must  be  something  which  qualifies  for  obedience  and 
creates  obligation  which  renders  obedience  possible, 
and  makes  it  reasonable  that  it  should  be  rendered 


20  NATURAL   ABILITY. 

Freedom  of  the  will.   Actual  obedience  not  essential  to  free  agency. 

and  rewarded,  and  just  that  disobedience  should  be 
punished. 

Now  I  have  taught  and  I  do  hold,  that  the  mind  of 
man,  though  in  a  fallen  state,  is  still  endued  by  its 
Creator  'with  that  natural  liberty  that  it  is  neither 
forced,  nor  by  any  absolute  necessity  of  nature  de- 
termined to  good  or  evil,  nor  is  violence  offered  to 
the  will  of  the  creature' — nor  is  the  liberty  or  con- 
tingency of  second  causes  (i.  e.  the  power  of  the  soul 
to  choose  life  or  death  in  the  view  of  motives.)  taken 
aw^ay,  but  rather  established.  This  is  what  I  mean, 
and  all  I  mean,  by  the  natural  ability  of  man  to  obey 
the  gospel.  Material  causes,  wliile  upheld  by  heaven, 
are  adequate  to  their  proper  effects;  and  the  mind  of 
man,  though  fallen,  is,  while  upheld,  a  cause  sufficient 
in  respect  to  the  possibility  of  obedience  to  create 
infinite  obligation.  The  fall  perverted,  but  did  not 
destroy  the  free  agency  of  man.  Perverted  the  use 
of  his  powers  in  action,  but  did  not  destroy  the  ex- 
istence of  those  powers  which  distinguish  man  as  a 
subject  of  moral  government  from  animals,  and  lie  at 
the  foundation  of  all  obligation.  This  is  my  alleged 
heresy;  and  to  decide  that  it  is  a  heresy,  is  to  decide 
that  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  the  Bible  teach,  that 
to  fallen  man,  no  ability  of  any  sort  is  necessary  to 
constitute  infinite  obligation,  and  a  just  desert  of  eter- 
nal punishment. 

But  while  I  thus  insist  on  the  existence  of  the 
commensurate  powers  of  an  agent,  as  essential  to 
free  agency  and  accountability,  I  do  not  believe,  and 
have  never  taught,  that  actual  obedience  is  essential 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  21 

Bias  to  actual  sin  not  a  coercive  cause. 

to  free  agency,  or  that  the  free  agency  which  suffices 
to  create  a  perfect  obligation  to  obey,  ever  suffices 
without  the  special  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
secure  in  fallen  man  even  the  lowest  degree  of  holy, 
actual  obedience.  On  the  contrary,  I  hold  and  teach, 
that  such  a  change  in  the  constitution  of  man  was 
produced  by  the  fall,  as  creates  a  universal  and  prev- 
alent propensity  to  actual  sin — to  the  setting  of  the 
affections  on  things  below,  and  loving  the  creature 
more  than  God — preventing  in  all  men  the  existence 
of  holiness,  and  securing  the  existence  of  that  actual, 
total  depravity,  which  is  enmity  against  God,  not  sub- 
ject to  his  law,  neither  indeed  can  be — a  bias  which 
prevents  the  power  of  all  truth  and  motives  to  reconcile 
men  to  God  till  its  power  is  overcome  by  the  special  in- 
fluence of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  regeneration;  and  though 
impaired  by  that  event,  still  remains  in  the  regenerate 
until  removed  entirely  by  the  Spirit,  in  making  the 
soul  of  the  saint  meet  for  heaven.  I  only  say  with 
our  Confession,  that  this  bias  to  actual  sin  acts  not  in 
the  form  of  a  coercive  cause,  creating  a  fatal  and  irre- 
sistible necessity  of  sinning,  and  of  course  constitutes 
no  excuse  for  actual  sin,  and  no  mitigation  of  the 
curse  due  to  it,  or  abatement  of  God's  boundless 
mercy  in  providing  redemption  for  incorrigible  man. 
This  impediment  to  obedience,  arising  from  a  preva- 
lent bias  of  nature  and  actual  aversion  to  spiritual 
obedience,  is  called  in  the  Confession  and  the  Bible, 
inability  to  obey  on  account,  as  1  suppose,  of  the 
same  absolute  certainty  between  their  existence  and 
the  result,  that  appertains  to  natural  causes  and  their 
3 


NATURAL  ABILITY. 


Moral  inability.  Certainty  of  wrong  action. 

effects;  and  it  is  called  a  moral  inability  to  indicate 
that  though  wrong,  as  securing  wrong  action  with  un- 
failing certainty,  it  does  so  not  by  a  fatal  necessity  of 
sinning,  but  by  an  unnecessary,  unreasonable,  inex- 
cusable aversion  of  the  soul  to  God  and  his  reasonable 
service. 

While  I  teach,  therefore,  the  ability  of  man  as  a 
free  agent,  and  as  the  ground  of  obligation,  I  teach 
his  moral  inability  as  a  sinner — the  subject  of  the 
carnal  mind  which  is  enmity  against  God — not  sub- 
ject to  his  law,  neither  indeed  can  be. 

In  the  true  sense  of  the  terms  as  employed  in  the 
Confession,  and  in  the  Bible,  and  in  the  common  and 
well  understood  language  of  men,  I  teach  that,  'no 
mere  man  since  the  fall  has  been  able  perfectly  to 
keep  the  commandments  of  God — and  that  the  natu- 
ral man  cannot  understand  and  know  the  things  of 
the  Spirit  of  God,  because  they  are  spiritually  dis- 
cerned— and  that  no  man  can  come  to  Christ,  except 
the  Father  draw  him.' 

I  proceed  now  to  show,  that  the  preceding  account 
of  man's  free  agency,  and  natural  ability,  and  of 
his  total  depravity  and  moral  impotency,  are  the 
doctrine  of  our  Confession,  and  of  the  Bible. 

The  point  at  issue  is  not,  whether  fallen  man  ever 
did,  or  ever  will,  act  right,  in  a  spiritual  sense, 
without  the  regeneration  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is 
admitted,  and  insisted,  and  to  be  proved,  that  he 
never  did,  and  never  will.  The  point  at  issue  is — in 
what  manner  the  certainty  of  the  continuous  wrong 
action  of  the  mind  comes  to  pass?     Does  it  come  to 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  23 

The  mind  not  forced  to  a  wrong  choice. 


pass  coerced  or  uncoerced  by  necessity  ?  Does  fallen 
man  choose,  under  the  influence  of  such  a  constitu- 
tion of  body,  and  mind,  and  motive,  that  every  voli- 
tion bears  the  relation  of  an  effect  to  a  natural  and 
necessary  cause,  rendering  any  other  choice  than  the 
one  which  comes  to  pass  impossible  in  existing  cir- 
cumstances? Or  is  fallen  man  still  an  agent,  so 
constituted  that  in  every  act  of  choice  he  is  uncon- 
strained and  uncoerced  by  any  necessity,  like  that 
which  binds  natural  effects  to  their  causes?  Is  the 
soul  so  exempt  from  the  laws  of  a  natural  necessity, 
that  it  is  never  forced  to  choose  wrong;  there  exist- 
ing in  every  case  the  possibility  and  obligation 
growing  out  of  the  possibility  of  a  different,  or  con- 
trary choice?  The  latter  is  the  view  of  free  agency 
and  accountability  which  I  shall  endeavor  to  estab- 
lish, as  the  doctrine  of  the  Confession  and  the  Bible; 
and, 

I.  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  God  is  able 
to  create  free  agents,  who  being  sustained  and  placed 
under  the  illumination  and  inffuence  of  his  laws  and 
perfect  government,  shall  be  able  to  obey  or  disobey 
in  the  regular  exercise  of  the  powers  of  their  own 
mind. 

The  alleged  impossibility  of  created  self-existing 
agents  acting  independently  of  God,  does  not  touch 
the  point:  for  the  supposition  of  agency  able  to 
choose  the  good  and  refuse  the  evil,  does  not  imply 
the  mind's  self-existence,  but  the  efficacy  of  its  pow- 
ers, while  upheld;  and  it  might  as  well  be  said  that 
God   cannot  create  natural  causes,  which,  while  he 


24  NATURAL  ABILITY. 

Creation  and  government  of  mind  upon  principles  of  free  agency. 

upholds  them,  can,  by  their  own  power,  produce  an 
effect,  as  that  he  cannot  create  mind,  which,  while 
upheld  by  him,  is  capable  of  acting  right  or  wTong, 
under  the  requirements  and  motives  of  his  govern- 
ment; both  lead  to  pantheism,  denying  all  created 
causes,  and  making  God  the  only  cause  and  the  only 
agent  in  the  universe. 

There  is  no  perceptible  difficulty  in  creating  mind, 
more  than  in  creating  matter — in  creating  active, 
than  passive  existence — or  thinking,  than  unthinking 
— voluntary,  than  involuntary  being.  It  is  just  as 
conceivable  that  God  should  create  mind  endowed 
with  an  energy  which,  while  it  is  sustained,  is  com- 
mensurate to  every  requisite  action  under  his  govern- 
ment, by  its  own  power,  as  that  he  should  create 
passive  matter,  dependent  for  every  movement  and 
change  on  external  causation. 

How  God  can  originate  existence  of  any  kind,  is 
incomprehensible,  but  no  one  can  prove  it  to  be  im- 
possible. The  creation  of  an  intelligent  universe,  of 
free,  accountable  minds,  capable  of  all  the  responsi- 
bilities of  a  perfect,  eternal  government,  is  just  as 
conceivable  therefore,  as  the  creation  of  hills  and 
valleys,  plants  and  animals. 

II.  If  it  be  possible  to  create  and  govern  mind  upon 
the  principles  of  free  agency,  and  a  perfect  and  per- 
manent moral  government,  the  presumption  is  strong 
that  this  is  in  fact  the  divine  plan.  What  other  con- 
ceivable course  could  the  wisdom  of  God  devise,  so 
comprehensive  of  good,  as  the  creation  of  a  universe 
of  mind,  with  its  constitutional  susceptibilities,  and 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  25 

Animal  life.  Capabilities  of  mind. 

active,  and  social,  and  voluntary  powers;  qualified 
for  all  the  results  of  a  government  of  perfect  laws, 
perfectly  administered? 

It  is  self-evident  that  the  creation  of  unorganized 
matter  could  not  illustrate  the  copiousness  and 
power  of  the  Divine  benevolence.  God  might 
amuse  himself  with  curious  workmanship,  but  how 
could  he  impart  happiness  to  unorganized  mat- 
ter? It  is  equally  clear  that  mere  animal  life 
falls,  in  its  capacity  of  enjoyment,  unspeakably 
below  the  capabilities  of  mind.  How  limited  is  the 
range  of  the  monotonous  appetites!  How  narrow 
the  circle  of  mere  fleeting,  instinctive  action;  and 
how  feeble  the  momentary  tie  of  natural  affection, 
compared  with  its  corroboration  by  ties  of  blood, 
and  habits  of  intercourse,  and  the  illumination  of 
reason,  and  the  powers  of  memory,  and  the  light  of 
an  anticipated  eternity,  of  unextinguished,  purified, 
augmented  and  reciprocated  friendship! 

How  immeasurable  is  that  expansion  of  capacity 
in  man,  above  the  animal,  which  opens  the  eye  of  his 
intellect  upon  the  character,  will,  and  government 
of  God;  which  brings  him  into  fellowship  with  his 
Maker,  and  opens  before  him  the  joys  of  a  blessed 
immortality;  associated  with  a  reasonable  service, 
and  benevolent  activity,  under  the  high  and  perfect 
guidance  of  heaven. 

A  single  mind,  through  a  duration  which  will  never 

end,  may   be   capable   of  more   enjoyment  than   it 

were,   in   the   nature  of   things,    possible    to    pour 

through    the   narrow   channels   of    animal   instinct 

3* 


26  NATURAL  ABILITY. 

God's  benevolence  displayed  in  the  creation  of  mind. 

and  appetite.  The  river  of  pleasure  is  of  course  rep- 
resented as  flowing  from  the  throne  of  God  and  the 
Lamb,  i.  e.  as  being  the  result  of  his  intelligent  crea- 
tion and  moral  government;  what  an  ocean  of  bless- 
edness, compared  to  the  drops  of  the  bucket,  which 
any  other  conceivable  mode  of  being  could  have 
received  1  A  universe,  that  can  live  in  the  past, 
present,  and  future,  and  experience  a  copiousness 
and  variety  of  blessedness  unknown  to  the  moping 
animal — to  have  stopped  at  the  limits  of  animalism, 
and  forborne  to  create  mind,  would  have  been  to 
prefer  the  ray  to  the  sun — the  atom  to  the  universe. 
It  would  seem  to  be  manifest  and  certain,  then,  that 
for  the  most  perfect  manifestation  of  his  wisdom 
and  benevolence,  the  Supreme  Intelligence  would 
call  into  being  around  him,  other  beings  like  himself, 
to  hold  communion  with  him  and  with  one  another, 
and  after  his  own  illustrious  example  to  be  made 
happy  by  their  own  benevolent  activity  in  doing 
good;  would  create  mind — and  wake  up  intelligence 
round  about  his  throne,  for  the  mirrors  of  creation 
to  throw  back  the  light  of  his  glory  upon — hearts  to 
burn  with  love,  and  wills  to  obey,  and  energy  to 
act,  with  high  deservings  of  good  or  evil — a  universe 
so  powerful  in  intellect  as  to  be  able  to  look  with 
open  face  and  steadfast  vision  upon  the  strong  light  of 
his  glory,  and  so  capacious  of  heart  as  to  be  able  to 
receive  the  tide  of  joy  w^hich  his  benevolence  shall 
pour  through  the  soul — so  energetic  as  to  sustain  the 
strong  emotion  which  his  excellence  produces,  and 
to  perform  for  ever  untiringly  the  glorious  work  of 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  27 


Attributes  of  mind.  Mental 


energy, 


benevolence — and  so  free  that  all  its  actions  under 
the  guidance  of  law  shall  be  its  own,  and  invested 
with  all  the  attributes  of  a  perfect  accountability, 
which,  in  all  its  consequences  of  good  or  evil  shall  reach 
through  eternity — social^  also,  we  should  expect  it  to 
be,  holding  afiectionate  communion  with  God  and 
other  minds;  capable  of  moral  excellence  and  all  the 
fulness  of  perfect  friendship  and  society.  Obliterate 
conscious  intelligence,  and  voluntariness,  and  ac- 
countability from  the  human  mind — disrobe  it  of  its 
spontaneous  affections,  and  mutual  complacencies, 
and  you  put  down  the  race  to  the  mere  caricature  of 
manhood. 

There  must  exist  the  power  of  intellect,  perception, 
comparison,  judgment,  conscience,  will,  atfections, 
taste,  memory,  the  discursive  power  of  thought,  the 
semi-omnipotence  of  volition,  and  those  exercises  of 
soul  which  constitute  personal  excellence  and  inspire 
affection. 

It  is  only  in  the  possession  of  these  powers  that 
individual  happiness  is  enjoyed.  Convince  a  man 
that  he  is  only  the  instinctive  animal  of  a  day,  and 
you  brutalize  him.  We  love  and  are  beloved,  admire 
and  are  adn:iired;  w^e  are  praised  or  blamed  on  the 
ground  of  a  real  mental  energy  of  our  own,  capable 
of  such  high  and  eternal  responsibilities.  Blot  out  the 
intelligence  and  spontaneous  affection  of  husband  and 
wife,  of  parent  and  child,  and  the  family  is  ruined;  the 
moral  attractions  cease;  its  sun  goes  down,  and  it 
becomes  a  den  of  animals. 

In  the  nature  of  things,  the  existence  of  a  universe 


28  NATURAL  ABILITY. 

Free  agents  have  power  to  choose  life  or  death. 

of  mind,  of  free  agents,  of  rational,  social,  accounta- 
ble beings,  would  seem  to  be  indispensable  to  the 
highest  illustration  and  expression  of  the  goodness 
of  God. 

III.  God  has  actually  made  free  agents  who  were 
able  in  the  exercise  of  their  created  powers  to  choose 
either  way — life  or  death. 

This  is  the  doctrine  of  our  Confession  and  Cate- 
chisms. '  Man  in  his  state  of  innocency  had  freedom 
and  power  to  will  and  to  do  that  which  is  good  and 
well  pleasing  to  God;  but  yet  mutably  so  that  he 
might  fall  from  it.' — Confess,  Ch.  ix.  See,  2. 

'Our  first  parents  being  left  to  the  freedom  of  their 
own  will,  fell  from  the  state  wherein  they  were  crea- 
ted, by  sinning  against  God.' — Shorter  Catechism^ 
p.  322. 

It  is  the  testimony  of  the  Bible:  'Lo,  this  only  have 
I  found  that  God  made  man  upright — but  he  sought 
out  many  inventions.' — Ecc.  vii.  29. 

It  is  a  part  of  the  recorded  history  of  the  intelli- 
gent universe,  and  of  God's  moral  government,  that 
the  angels  kept  not  their  first  estate — and  that  man 
being  in  honor  abode  not. 

Now  had  Adam,  created  holy,  been  free  to  choose 
obedience  onlij^  and  that  by  a  natural,  constitutional, 
unavoidable  necessity,  so  that  by  the  power  of  natur- 
al causation,  his  choice  must  be  in  accordance  with 
his  character  and  constitution  of  mind,  and  the  con- 
stitution of  things  around  him,  or  the  active  princi- 
ple which  prevailed  in  his  nature  when  volition  took 
place;  how  could  he  be  said  to  have  power  to  will 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  29 

The  Fall  did  not  destroy  the  constitutional  powers  of  free  agency. 


that  which  is  good,  yet  mutably  so  that  he  might  fall 
from  it,  and  how  could  he  possibly  fall?  But  he  had 
power  to  stand  and  power  to  fall  5  and  that  is  the 
essence  of  free  agency,  and  was  the  ground  of  his 
accountability. 

IV.  Nothing  is  apparent  in  the  nature  of  the  fall 
from  which  to  infer  necessarily  the  destruction  of 
the  constitutional  powers  of  free  agency  in  Adam, 
or  his  posterity.  It  was  an  overt  act — an  actual  sin. 
'In  evil  hour  he  put  forth  the  hand  and  plucked  and 
ate  the  fruit  forbidden.'  But  does  actual  sin  destroy 
the  possibility  of  right  action?  It  creates  aversion — 
it  secures  the  certainty  under  law  of  continuance  in 
evil  if  unreclaimed  by  a  mediator  and  almighty  power. 
But  does  it  do  this  by  a  constitutional  necessity,  like 
the  power  of  a  natural  cause  to  its  efl'ect?  If  so,  the 
adulterer,  and  the  drunkard,  and  the  liar,  would  like 
to  alleviate  their  remorse  and  quiet  their  fearful  look- 
ing for  of  fiery  indignation,  by  the  consoling  inform- 
ation that  the  more  they  live  after  the  flesh,  the 
deeper  the  oblivion  of  accountability,  and  crime,  and 
punishment. 

But  the  Bible  nowhere  teaches,  and  the  Confession 
expressly  denies,  that  Adam  or  his  posterity  lost 
their  powers  of  agency  by  the  fall,  and  became  impo- 
tent to  good  on  the  ground  of  a  natural  impossibility 
of  obedience. 

Did  the  change  of  character,  then,  which  the  fall 
occasioned,  preclude  the  possibility  of  subsequent 
obedience  in  Adam?  What  was  the  change?  It  was 
the  utter  loss  of  all  holiness,  and  the  prevalence  of 


30  NATURAL  ABILITY. 

Powers  of  agency  requisite  to  obligation.    Possibility  of  obedience. 

entire  depravity — every  imagination  of  the  thoughts 
of  his  heart  became  evil,  and  only  evil  continually. 
But  does  total  depravity  render  spiritual  obedience  a 
natural  impossibility?  How?  Did  the  perfect  holi- 
ness of  Adam  render  sinning  impossible?  How  then 
did  he  sin?  Did  God  help  him?  Did  the  Devil  force 
him?  But  if  perfect  holiness  does  not  destroy  the 
possibility  of  sinning,  how  should  perfect  sinfulness 
destroy  the  possibility  of  obedience?  Is  there  not  as 
much  in  the  'state  of  man'  as  holy,  'including  all  his 
rational,  animal,  and  moral  powers,  with  the  active 
principle  which  prevails  in  him,'  to  make  disobedience 
impossible  to  a  holy  mind,  as  in  the  same  state  of  things 
in  an  unholy  mind,  to  render  obedience  impossible? 
But  if  perfect  holiness  does  not  destroy  the  natural 
possibility  of  sinning,  how  does  perfect  sinfulness  de- 
stroy the  natural  possibility  of  obedience?  And  if  the 
fall  did  not  destroy  the  natural  powers  of  agency  in 
Adam,  which  rendered  obedience  possible,  obligatory, 
and  a  reasonable  service,  how  should  it  destroy  in  his 
posterity  those  powers  and  responsibilities,  which  it 
did  not  obliterate  in  himself?  Has  the  fall  overacted 
and  come  down  with  greater  desolation  on  the  rep- 
resented, than  on  the  federal  head  and  representa- 
tive of  his  race? 

V.  That  man  possesses,  since  the  fall,  the  powers 
of  agency  requisite  to  obligation,  on  the  ground  of  the 
possibility  of  obedience,  is  a  matter  of  notoriety. 
Not  one  of  the  powers  of  mind  which  constituted 
ability  before  the  fall,  have  been  obliterated  by  that 
event.     All  that  has  ever  been  conceived,  or  that  can 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  31 


Obedience  a  reasonable  service.  Nature  of  choice. 

now  be  conceived,  as  entering  into  the  constitution 
of  a  free  agent  capable  of  choosing  life  or  death,  or 
which  did  exist  in  Adam  when  he  could  and  did  obey, 
yet  mutable,  survive  the  fall.  The  intellect,  the 
conscience,  the  susceptibilities  of  the  soul  to  pleasure 
and  pain,  and  the  heart,  including  the  will  and  affec- 
tions of  the  soul — all  these  as  certainly  exist  and  as 
plainly  exist  as  the  five  senses. 

That  nothing  has  been  subtracted  by  the  fall  from 
the  powers  of  agency  requisite  to  the  possibility  of 
obedience,  is  strongly  evident  from  the  fact,  that  no 
one,  by  the  most  careful  analysis  of  the  mind,  has 
ever  been  able  to  detect  and  name  the  fatal  deficiency. 
The  motive  to  make  such  an  exculpatory  discovery, 
and  throw  off  hated  obligation  and  feared  punish- 
ment, has  been  as  powerful  as  the  terrors  of  eternity; 
and  the  efibrt  as  constant  as  the  flow  of  ages — and 
urged  with  all  that  talent,  and  ingenuity,  and 
learning  could  apply,  and  the  wisdom  from  beneath 
inspire  to  establish  the  excusable  impotency  of  man; 
and  to  this  day  the  effort  has  been  abortive.  To 
appearance,  the  powers  of  the  mind,  and  the  law  of 
God,  and  the  glorious  gospel,  and  the  providence  of 
God  are,  as  they  should  be,  to  render  obedience  a 
reasonable  service,  and  impenitence  and  unbelief 
without  excuse;  and  where,  amid  the  constitutional 
powers  of  agency,  the  defect  lies,  has  never  been  dis- 
covered— what  it  is,  has  never  been  told — or  that 
there  is  any  such  defect,  proved. 

VI.  Choice,  in  its  very  nature,  implies  the  possibility 
of  a  different  or  contrary  election  to  that  which  is 


32  NATURAL  ABILITY. 

Fatality  of  choice.  Doctrine  of  the  christian  fathers. 

made.  There  is  always  an  alternative  to  that  which 
the  mind  decides  on,  with  the  conscious  power  of 
choosing  either.  In  the  simplest  form  of  alternative, 
it  is  to  choose  or  not  to  choose  in  a  given  way;  but 
in  most  cases,  the  alternatives  lie  between  two  or 
many  objects  of  choice  presented  to  the  mind;  and 
if  you  deny  to  mind  this  alternative  power — if  you 
insist  that  by  a  constitution  anterior  to  choice,  of  the 
nature  of  a  natural  cause  to  its  effect,  the  choice 
which  takes  place  can  come,  and  cannot  but  come  into 
being,  and  that  none  other  than  this  can  by  any  pos- 
sibility exist,  you  have  as  perfect  a  fatality  of  choice, 
as  ever  Pagan  or  Atheist,  or  Antinomian  conceived. 
The  question  of  free  will  is  not  whether  man  chooses 
— this  is  notorious,  none  deny  it;  but,  whether  his 
choice  is  free  as  opposed  to  a  fatal  necessity — as  op- 
posed to  the  laws  of  instinct  and  natural  causation; 
whether  it  is  the  act  of  a  mind  so  qualified  for  choice, 
as  to  decide  between  alternatives,  uncoerced  by  the 
energy  of  a  natural  cause  to  its  effect;  whether  it  is 
the  act  of  an  agent  wdio  might  have  abstained  from 
the  choice  he  made,  and  made  one  which  he  did  not. 
To  speak  of  choice  as  being  free,  which  is  produced 
by  the  laws  of  a  natural  necessity,  and  which  cannot 
but  be  when  and  what  it  is,  more  than  the  effects  of 
natural  causes  can  govern  the  time,  and  manner,  and 
qualities  of  their  being,  is  a  perversion  of  language. 
The  doctrine  of  the  christian  fathers,  and  of  Luther  and 
Calvin,  and  all  theprotestant  confessions  and  standard 
writers,  is  not  merely  that  men  act  by  volition  or  choice, 
the  choice   being   the  effect  of  natural   causes,  as 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  33 

Fatality  of  agency,  illustrated. 

really  and  entirely  as  the  falling  of  rain,  or  the  elec- 
tric spark,  or  the  involuntary  shock  that  attends  it. 
They  meant  and  taught  that  the  will  is  high  above 
the  coercion  of  natural  causation,  the  fatality  of  the 
Stoics,  Gnostics,  Manicheans,  or  Epicureans;  that  it 
is  the  action  of  the  mind  of  an  intelligent  agent,  free 
as  opposed  to  coercion  or  constraint;  so  that  if  the 
mental  decision  is  right,  it  is  properly  associated 
with  a  reward,  and  if  wrong,  with  punishment — an 
act  which  might,  in  possibility,  have  been  refrained 
from,  or  resolved  on  when  declined.  This  is  what 
our  Confession  teaches  and  means,  when  it  says  that 
'God  hath  endued  the  will  of  man  with  that  natural 
liberty  that  it  is  neither  forced,  nor  by  any  absolute 
necessity  of  nature  determined,  to  good  or  evil;  and 
that  God's  decrees,  which  extend  to  every  event, 
'offer  no  violence  to  the  will  of  the  creature,  and 
take  not  away,  but  rather  establish  the  liberty  and 
contingency  of  second  causes' — meaning  by  contin- 
gency, as  Dr.  Twiss  says  every  university  scholar 
knows,  '  things  which  come  to  pass  avoidably,  and 
with  a  possibility  of  not  coming  to  pass.'  This  is  the 
language  of  our  own  Confession  in  respect  to  the 
voluntary  actions  of  men  as  contingent,  i.  e.,  as 
avoidable  and  with  a  possibility  of  not  coming  to  pass. 
To  illustrate  the  fatality  of  an  agency,  in  which 
choice  is  the  unavoidable  effect  of  a  natural  con- 
stitutional and  coercive  causation,  let  us  suppose  an 
extended  manufactory,  all  whose  wheels,  like  those 
in  Ezekiel's  vision,  were  inspired  with  intelligence, 
and  instinct  with  life, — some  crying  holy!  holy!  as 


34  NATURAL  ABILITY. 

Edwards'  view  of  free    agency. 

they  rolled,  and  others  aloud  blaspheming  God;  all 
voluntary  in  their  praises  and  blasphemies;  but  the 
volitions,  like  the  motions  of  the  wheels  themselves, 
produced  by  the  great  water-wheel  and  the  various 
bands  which  kept  the  motion,  and  the  adoration,  and 
the  blasphemy  agoing:  how  much  accountability 
would  attach  to  these  voluntary  praises  and  blas- 
phemies produced  by  the  laws  of  water  power;  and 
what  would  it  avail  to  say,  as  a  reason  for  justifying 
God  in  punishing  these  blasphemies — oh!  but  they 
are  free,  they  are  voluntary,  they  choose  to  blas- 
pheme? Truly,  indeed,  they  blaspheme  voluntarily; 
but  their  choice  to  do  so  is  necessary  in  the  same 
sense  that  the  motion  of  the  great  wheel  which  the 
water,  by  the  power  of  gravity  turns,  is  necessary, 
and  just  as  destitute  of  accountability. 

In  this  account  of  free  agency,  the  ablest  writers 
concur.  Edwards  says,  '  In  every  act  of  will  what- 
ever, the  mind  chooses  one  thing  rather  than  an- 
other, the  will's  determining  between  the  two  is 
voluntary  determining;  and  to  act  voluntarily,  is 
to  act  electively  where  things  are  chosen.'  'There 
are  faculties  of  mind,'  he  says,  'and  capacity  of 
nature,  and  every  thing  else  sufficient  but  a  disposi- 
tion. Nothing  is  wanting  but  a  will.'  '  A  moral 
agent  is  a  being  that  is  capable  of  those  actions  that 
have  a  moral  quality,  and  which  can  properly  be 
denominated  good  or  evil.'  Edwards  the  younger 
says, '  If  by  power,  be  meant  natural  power,  I  grant 
that  we  have  such  a  power  to  choose,  not  only  one 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  35 

Buck's  view  of  free  agency.  Fatalism. 

of  several  things  equally  eligible,  if  any  such  there 
be,  but  one  of  things  ever  so  unequally  eligible,  and 
to  take  the  least  eligible.'  '  Liberty  or  freedom 
must  mean  freedom  from  something,  if  it  be  a  free- 
dom from  coaction  or  natural  necessity,  that  is  what 
we  mean  by  freedom.'  Buck,  on  the  article  Neces- 
sity^ says, '  Necessity  is,  whatever  is  done  by  a  cause 
or  power  that  is  irresistible,  in  which  sense  it  is 
opposed  to  freedom.  Man  is  a  necessary  agent,  if 
all  his  actions  be  so  determined  by  the  causes  pre- 
ceding each  action,  that  not  one  past  action  could 
possibly  not  have  come  to  pass,  or  have  been  other- 
wise than  it  hath  been,  nor  one  future  action  can 
possibly  not  come  to  pass,  or  be  otherwise  than  it 
shall  be.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  asserted,  that  he  is 
a  free  agent,  if  he  be  able  at  any  time,  under  the 
causes  and  circumstances  he  then  is,  to  do  different 
things;  or,  in  other  words,  if  he  be  not  unavoidably 
determined  in  every  point  of  time  by  the  circum- 
stances he  is  in,  and  the  causes  he  is  under,  to  do  any 
one  thing  he  does,  and  not  possibly  to  do  any  other 
thing.'  And  Dr.  Woods  says, '  The  power  of  choos- 
ing right  or  wrong  makes  him  [man]  a  moral  agent; 
his  actually  choosing  wrong,  makes  him  a  sinner.' 

VII.  Choice,  without  the  possibility  of  other  or 
contrary  choice,  is  the  immemorial  doctrine  of 
fatalism. 

I  say  not  that  all  who  assert  the  natural  inability 
of  man  are  fatalists.  I  charge  them  not  with  holding 
or  admitting  the  consequences  of  their  theory — and  I 
mean  nothing  unkind  or  invidious,  in  the  proposition 


36  NATURAL  ABILITY. 

Laws  of  choice.  Certainty  of  choice.  Uniformity  of  choice. 

I  have  laid  down,  and  truth  and  argument  are  not 
invidious.  But  I  say,  that  the  theory  of  choice, 
that  it  is  what  it  is  by  a  natural,  constitutional 
necessity,  and  that  a  man  cannot  help  choosing 
what  he  does  choose,  and  can  by  no  possibility 
choose  otherw^ise,  is  the  doctrine  of  fatalism  in  all 
its  forms.  That  there  are  laws  of  choice^  so  uniform 
that  in  the  same  circumstances,  the  action  of  mind 
can  be  anticipated  v,  ith  great  certainty,  is  not  denied. 
That  choice  is  in  accordance  with  the  state  of  body 
and  mind,  and  character,  and  external  circumstances, 
may  be  admitted,  or  that  it  is  as  the  greatest  appar- 
ent good  is,  may  be  admitted;  but  that  it  is  so  neces- 
sarily, to  the  exclusion  of  all  ability  of  any  kind  to  be 
other  than  it  is,  cannot  be  admitted,  without  aban- 
doning the  field  of  God's  government  of  accountable 
agents,  and  going  to  the  very  centre  of  the  region  of 
fatalism.  The  certainty  of  choice  in  given  circum- 
stances does  not  decide  the  manner  of  the  certainty, 
as  one  of  natural  necessity,  without  power  to  the 
contrary.  That  a  man  always,  in  the  same  cir- 
cumstances, chooses  alike,  is  no  evidence  that  he  had 
no  ability  of  any  kind  to  choose  otherwise,  and 
chooses  by  a  fatal  necessity.  Uniformity  of  choice, 
in  the  same  circumstances,  is  just  as  consistent  with 
free  agency  and  natural  ability,  as  with  necessity 
and  fatalism.  But  that  choice,  without  the  power  of 
contrary  choice,  is  fatalism  in  all  its  diversified  forms, 
is  obvious  to  inspection,  and  a  matter  of  historical 
record.  The  fataUty  of  the  Stoics  was  an  eternal 
series  of  cause  and  effect,  controlling  by  inexorable 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  37 

Fatalism — Gnostic,  Manichean,  Pantheistic,  Atheistic. 

necessity  all  events,  from  which  the  will  of  gods  and 
men  were  not  exempt.  The  fatality  of  Epicurus  is 
a  material  fatality;  he  denied  the  existence  of  spirit, 
and  held  to  the  universal  empire  of  natural  causes 
over  mind  in  all  its  voluntary  actions. 

The  Gnostic  fatality  made  sin  an  eternal  prop- 
erty of  matter,  and  the  contamination  of  mind  the 
result  of  bodily  innoculation  and  contact,  and  by  an 
unavoidable  necessity,  precluding  freedom  of  will  as 
utterly  as  the  communication  of  disease  by  virus. 

The  Manicheans  held  with  the  Gnostics  to  the  cor- 
ruption of  matter,  and  also  to  sin  in  the  essence  or 
substance  of  the  soul;  both  making  sin  a  matter  of 
necessity,  independent  of  choice,  and  controling  vo- 
lition as  natural  causes,  produce  their  effects. 

The  fatalism  of  Spinoza  was  material  and  panthe- 
istic, making  God  the  soul  of  the  world  and  the  only 
agent,  and  himself  subject  to  a  self-existent,  eternal 
necessity  of  action,  and  the  author  alike  of  sin  and 
holiness. 

The  fatalism  of  Descartes  was  the  atomic  theory, 
the  fortuitous  concourse  of  atoms — intelligence  in 
results  without  an  intelligent  being — design  without 
a  designer — and  choice,  the  product  of  the  happy 
concurrence  of  material  accidents. 

The  fatalism  of  the  French  revolutionary  atheists, 
was  Sadducean;  that  all  existence  is  material,  and  all 
its  combinations  and  changes  the  result  of  material 
laws  in  the  form  of  natural  cause  and  effect;  that 
mind  is  matter,  and  that  volition  is  the  result  of 
material  action;  and  that  death,  the  decomposition  of 
4^' 


38  NATURAL  ABILITY. 

Fatalism. — R.  D.  Owen,  Bolingbroke,  Hobbs,  Hume,  Priestly. 

the  body,  is  an  eternal  sleep.  This  is  the  fatalism  of 
Robert  Dale  Owen  and  Fanny  Wright. 

The  fatalism  of  Bolingbroke,  and  Hobbs,  and 
Hume,  was  made  to  approximate  a  little  more  to 
the  confines  of  rationality  and  truth,  but  not  near 
enough  to  leave  necessity  behind  and  bring  them  un- 
der the  government  of  God  as  free,  accountable  crea- 
tures. If  they  admitted  the  existence  of  mind  and 
spirit  distinct  from  matter,  (of  which  there  is  some 
doubt,)  they  clothed  motives,  as  the  antecedents  of 
volition,  with  the  coercive  power  of  material  causes 
to  their  effects,  and  thus  destroyed  the  liberty  of  the 
will,  and  introduced  a  universal  coercive  necessity 
of  choice;  just  in  all  cases  as  it  is  without  the  possi- 
bility of  one  more  or  less,  or  different  from  those 
which  actually  come  to  pass. 

The  necessity  of  Priestly  and  Belsham  was  mate- 
rial, and  all  volition  in  accordance  with  the  laws  and 
action  of  material  causes.  That  motives  produce 
volition  necessarily  on  the  same  principle  that  natu- 
ral causes  produce  their  effects;  so  that  choice,  as  the 
spontaneous  action  of  mind,  enlightened,  and  guided, 
and  influenced  by  law  and  motive,  has  no  existence, 
but  is  in  all  cases  the  passive  effect  of  antecedent 
natural  causation,  as  incapable  with  accountability  and 
desert  of  punishment  as  the  sparks  that  rise  by  their 
less  specific  gravity  than  that  of  the  surrounding 
atmosphere,  or  the  rain  drops  that  fall  by  their  supe- 
rior gravity  to  the  sustaining  element. 

VIII.  The  supposition  of  accountability  for  choice, 
coerced  by  a  natural  necessity,  is  contrary  to  the 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  39 

Accountability  for  choice.  Continued  obligation  and  responsibility. 

nature  of  things  as  God  has  constituted  them.  The 
relation  of  cause  and  effect  pervades  the  universe. 
'The  natural  world  is  full  of  it.  It  is  the  basis  of 
all  science,  and  of  all  intellectual  operations  with 
respect  to  mind.  Can  the  intellect  be  annihilated 
and  thinking  go  on?  No  more  can  the  power  of 
choice  be  annihilated  and  free  agency  remain.  Is 
there  not  a  capacity  of  choice  with  power  of  con- 
trary choice  in  angels?  and  was  there  not  in  Adam 
before  he  fell?  But  all  the  powers  of  the  mind,  per- 
ception, association,  abstraction,  memory,  taste  and 
feeling,  conscience,  and  capacity  of  choice,  which 
were  required  and  did  exist  when  man  was  created 
free,  are  still  required  to  constitute  free  agency;  and 
can  it  be  that  when  all  which  capacitated  Adam  freely 
to  choose  is  demolished,  that  the  Lord  still  requires 
of  his  posterity  that  they,  without  the  powers  of  their 
ancestor,  should  exercise  the  perfect  obedience  that 
was  demanded  of  him.  Do  the  requisitions  of  law 
continue  when  all  the  necessary  antecedents  to  obe- 
dience are  destroyed?  Has  God  required  effects 
without  a  cause?  If  he  has,  then  he  has  in  the  case 
of  man,  violated  the  analogies  of  the  whole  universe. 
For  in  the  natural  world  there  is  no  effect  without  a 
cause,  nor  is  there  in  the  intellectual  world.  How 
then  can  it  be,  that  the  same  analogy  does  not  hold 
in  the  moral  world,  where  there  exists  such  tremen- 
dous responsibilities?  What!  will  God  send  men  to 
hell,  for  not  doing  impossibilities — for  not  producing 
an  effect  without  a  cause?' 

IX.  'The  supposition  of  continued  obligation  and 


40  NATURAL  ABILITY. 

Effect  without  a  cause.  Foundation  of  accountability^ 

responsibility  after  all  the  powers  of  causation  are 
gone,  is  contrary  to  the  common  sense  and  intuitive 
perception  of  all  mankind.  On  the  subject  of  moral 
obligation,  all  men  can  see  and  do  see  that  there  can 
be  no  effect  without  a  cause.  Men  are  so  constituted, 
that  they  cannot  help  seeing  and  feeling  this.  That 
nothing  cannot  produce  something  is  an  intuitive  per- 
ception, and  you  cannot  prevent  it.  This  is  the  basis 
of  that  illustrious  demonstration  by  which  we  prove 
the  being  of  a  God.  For  if  one  thing  may  exist  with- 
out a  cause,  all  things  may;  and  we  are  yet  to  get 
hold  of  the  first  stran  of  an  argument  to  prove  the 
existence  of  a  God.  All  men  see  that  to  require 
what  there  is  not  preparation  for,  is  to  demand  an 
effect  without  a  cause.  What  is  the  foundation  of 
accountability?  It  is  the  possession  of  something  to 
be  accounted  for.  But  if  any  man  does  not  possess 
the  capacity  of  choice  with  power  to  the  contrary, 
he  sees  and  feels  that  he  is  not  to  blame,  and  you 
cannot  with  more  infallible  certainty  make  men  be- 
lieve, and  fix  them  in  the  belief,  that  they  are  not 
responsible,  than  to  teach  them  that  they  have  not 
the  power  of  alternative  election.  It  is  the  way 
to  make  a  man  a  fatalist.  But  you  cannot  do  it. 
God  has  put  that  in  the  breast  of  man  which  cannot 
be  reasoned  away.  Every  man  knows  and  feels  that 
he  has  power  and  is  responsible.  Men  never  associate 
blame  with  the  qualities  of  will  or  action,  on  the 
supposition  of  a  natural  impossibility  that  they  should 
be  otherwise,  but  always  on  the  supposition  that  they 
were  able  to  have  chosen  or  acted  otherwise.    What 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  41 

Power  of  choice,  a  ground  of  accountability.  Monomania. 

would  be  the  education  of  a  family  on  this  principle? 
There  is  not  a  child  five  years  old,  but  understands 
this.  He  breaks  a  plate,  or  spoils  a  piece  of  furni- 
ture, and  when  he  apprehends  punishment,  he  pleads 
with  confidence,  that  he  did  not  mean  to  do  it.  His 
language  is,  '  I  could'nt  help  it,'  and  on  that  plea  he 
rests.  The  child  understands  it;  and  the  parent  under- 
stands it,  and  all  human  laws  are  built  upon  it.  Why 
is  not  an  idiot  punished  when  he  commits  a  crime? 
For  the  lack  of  that  natural  ability  which  alone  makes 
him  responsible.  Why  are  not  lunatics  treated  as 
subjects  of  law?  Because  their  reason  has  been  so 
injured  as  to  destroy  free  agency,  and  with  it  to  put 
an  end  to  their  accountability.  Look  at  the  govern- 
ment of  a  family.  If  one  child  is  an  idiot,  the  parent 
does  not  trust  that  child  as  he  does  the  rest.  He  feels 
and  admits,  that  the  poor  idiot  is  not  responsible  for 
its  acts;  and  the  same  principle  holds  in  the  case  of 
monomania,  where  the  mind  is  deranged  in  one  par- 
ticular respect.  I  was  myself  acquainted  with  a  case 
of  this  sort.  I  knew  an  individual  in  whom  all  the 
powers  were  perfect — save  that  the  power  of  associ- 
ation was  wanting;  that  faculty  by  which  one  thought 
draws  on  another;  and  she  was  a  perfect  curiosity. 
She  would  commence  talking  on  one  subject,  and  be- 
fore the  sentence  was  complete,  she  would  commence 
on  another,  which  had  not  the  remotest  connection 
with  it,  and  in  an  instant  pass  to  a  third,  which  was 
foreign  from  both;  and  thus  she  would  hop,  skip,  and 
jump  over  all  the  world — there  was  no  concatenation 
of  thought.     Now,  suppose  this  woman  had  been  re- 


42  NATURAL  ABILITY. 

Freedom  of  choice,  a  matter  of  universal  consciousness. 

quired  to  deliver  a  Fourth  of  July  Oration,  admitting 
that  she  possessed  all  the  knowledge  and  talent  in 
other  respects,  necessary  to  such  a  task;  on  her 
failing  to  do  it,  is  she  to  be  taken  to  the  whipping  post, 
and  lacerated  for  that  which  she  wanted  the  natural 
ability  to  do?  The  magistrate  who  would  award 
such  a  sentence,  would  at  once  become  infamous — 
and  shall  not  the  Judge  of  all  the  earth  do  right? 
Will  the  glorious  and  righteous  Jehovah  reap  where 
he  has  not  sown,  and  gather  where  he  has  not  strew- 
ed? Will  he  require  obedience,  where  all  power  to 
obey  is  gone?  Men  do  not  require  that,  when  even 
one  faculty  is  gone;  and  will  God,  when  all  are  gone, 
come  and  take  his  creature  by  the  throat  and  say  to 
him,  pay  that  thou  owest?  That  was  the  libel  which 
the  slothful  servant  brought  against  his  Lord:  'I  knew 
thee  that  thou  wast  a  hard  master,  reaping  where 
thou  hast  not  sown,  and  gathering  where  thou  hast  not 
strown,  and  I  was  afraid.'  Who  would  not  be  afraid 
under  such  a  ruler?  Who  could  tell  what  would  come 
next?  God  requires  according  to  that  w^hich  a  man 
hath,  and  not  according  to  that  which  he  hath  not. 
Were  it  otherwise,  who  could  tell  what  wantonness 
and  what  oppression  might  not  proceed  from  heaven's 
high  throne  ? 

It  is  a  matter  of  universal  consciousness,  that  men 
are  free  to  choose  right  or  wrong,  life  or  death. 

Of  nothing  are  men  more  thoroughly  informed,  or 
more  competent  to  judge  unerringly,  than  in  respect 
to  their  mode  of  voluntary  action,  as  coerced  or 
free. 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  43 


No  alternative,  but  universal  scepticism. 

Testimony  may  mislead,  and  the  sense  by  disease 
may  deceive;  but  consciousness  is  the  end  of  all  con- 
troversy; its  evidence  cannot  be  increased,  and  if  it 
be  distrusted,  there  is  no  alternative  but  universal 
scepticism.  Our  consciousness  of  the  mode  of  men- 
tal action  in  choice,  as  uncoerced  and  free,  equals  our 
consciousness  of  existence  itself;  and  the  man  who 
doubts  either,  gives  indications  of  needing  medical 
treatment  instead  of  argument.  When  a  man  does 
wrong,  and  then  reflects  upon  the  act,  he  feels  that 
he  was  free  and  is  responsible;  and  so  when  he  looks 
forward  to  a  future  action.  When,  for  example,  he 
deliberates  whether  he  shall  commit  a  theft,  he  list- 
ens to  the  pleading  of  cowardice  or  conscience  on 
the  one  side,  and  of  covetousness  and  laziness  on  the 
other.  All  these  things  come  up  and  are  looked  at, 
and  after  considering  them,  he  at  length  screws  up 
his  mind  to  the  point  and  does  ihe  deed;  and  when 
he  has  done  it,  does  he  not  know,  does  he  not  feel, 
that  he  could  have  chosen  the  other  way?  If  not, 
why  did  he  balance  when  he  was  considering?  Did 
he  not  know  that  he  had  power  to  act,  and  power 
to  leave  it  undone?  And  when  it  is  past  recal,  is  he 
not  conscious  that  he  need  not  have  done  it?  And 
does  he  not  say  in  his  remorse,  lam  sorry  that  I  did  it? 
I  say,  therefore,  it  is  a  matter  of  common  consciousness 
to  all  mankind,  that  they  act  uncoerced  and  with  the 
power  of  acting  otherwise.  Give  a  child  an  apple  and 
an  orange;  after  he  has  eaten  the  orange,  he  will  wish 
he  had  it  back  again,  and  he  will  say  I  wish  I  had  eaten 
the  apple  and  kept  the  orange.     But  why,  if  he  did  not 


44  NATURAL  ABILITY. 

Universal  consciousness,  illustrated. 

feel  that  at  the  time  he  had  the  power  to  keep  the 
orange  and  eat  the  apple?  Yes,  men  have  the  power; 
and  the  consciousness  that  they  have  it,  will  go  with 
them  through  eternity.  What  says  God,  when  he 
warns  the  sinner  of  the  consequences  of  his  evil 
choic6?  '  Lest  thou  mourn  at  the  last,  when  thy  flesh 
and  thy  body  are  consumed,  and  say,  how  have  I 
hated  instruction  and  my  heart  despised  reproof,  and 
have  not  obeyed  the  voice  of  my  teacher,  nor  in- 
clined mine  ear  to  them  that  instructed  me.'  Incur- 
able regret  will  arise  from  the  perfect  consciousness 
that  when  he  did  evil  he  did  it  freely,  of  choice, 
under  no  coercion;  that  the  act  was  his  own,  and 
that  he  is  jusdy  responsible  for  it.  This  is  the 
worm  that  never  dies;  this,  this  is  the  fire  that  never 
shall  be  quenched.  And  because  tliis  consciousness 
is  in  men,  you  never  can  reason  them  out  of  a  sense 
of  their  accountability.  Many  have  tried  it,  but  none 
have  effectually,  or  for  any  length  of  time  succeeded; 
and  the  reason  is  plain,  there  is  nothing  which  the 
mind  is  more  conscious  of  than  the  fact  of  its  own 
voluntary  action  with  the  power  of  acting  right  or 
wrong — the  mind  sees  and  knows,  and  regrets  when 
it  has  done  wrong.  Take  away  this  consciousness  and 
there  is  no  remorse.  You  cannot  produce  remorse, 
as  long  as  a  man  feels  that  his  act  was  not  his  own — 
that  it  was  not  voluntary  but  the  etfect  of  compul- 
sion. He  may  dread  the  consequences,  but  you 
never  can  make  him  feel  remorse  for  the  act  on  its 
own  account.  This  is  the  reason  why  men  who 
have  reasoned  away  the  existence  of  God  and  argued 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  45 

Universal  consciousness,  illustrated. 

to  prove  that  the  soul  is  nothing  but  matter,  know, 
as  soon  as  they  reflect,  that  all  their  reasoning  is  false. 
There  is  a  lamp  within,  which  they  cannot  extinguish; 
and  after  all  their  metaphysics,  they  are  conscious 
that  they  act  freely,  and  that  there  is  a  God  to  whom 
they  are  accountable;  and  hence  it  is  that  when  they 
cross  the  ocean,  and  a  storm  comes  on,  and  they 
expect  to  go  to  the  bottom,  they  begin  straightway 
to  pray  to  God  and  confess  their  sins.' 

The  natural  impossibility  of  choosing  otherwise 
than  we  do  choose,  is  contrary,  then,  not  only  to  the 
common  sense  and  intuitive  perceptions  of  men,  but 
contrary  to  their  internal  consciousness.  There  is  a 
deep  and  universal  consciousness  in  all  men  as  to  the 
freedom  of  choice;  and  in  denying  this,  you  reverse 
God's  constitution  of  man.  You  assume  that  God 
gave  a  deceptive  constitution  to  mind,  or  a  deceptive 
consciousness.  Now  I  think  that  God  is  as  honest 
in  the  moral  world  as  he  is  in  the  natural  world.  I 
believe  that  in  our  consciousness  he  tells  the  truth; 
and  that  the  natural  constitution,  and  universal  feelings 
and  perceptions  of  men  are  the  voice  of  God  speaking 
the  truth;  and  if  the  truth  is  not  here,  where  may  we 
expect  to  find  it? 

It  has  been  insisted  by  some,  that  in  looking  for  the 
ground  of  accountability,  men  never  go  beyond  the 
fact  itself  of  voluntariness;  if  the  deed,  whether  good 
or  evil,  be  voluntary,  that  satisfies.  It  does;  but  it  is 
because  all  men  include,  unfailingly,  both  in  their  the- 
ory and  consciousness,  the  supposition  of  powers  of 
agency  unhindered  and  uncoerced  by  any  fatal  neces- 
5 


46  NATURAL  ABILITY. 

Power  of  choice  practically  acknowledged. 

sity.  But  convince  them  that  choice  is  an  effect,  over 
which  mind  has  no  more  control  than  over  the  drops 
of  rain,  and  the  common  sense  of  the  world  would 
revolt  against  the  accountability  of  choice,  merely  be- 
cause it  was  choice.  There  is  therefore  a  universal 
practical  confession  of  man's  free  agency,  as  including 
the  capacity  of  choice,  uncoerced  and  free.  All  men 
claim  a  desert  of  reward  for  welldoing,  and  com- 
plain of  ingratitude  and  injustice,  when  it  is  denied. 
They  admit  and  insist  that  those  who  injure  them  in 
person,  good  name,  or  substance,  deserve  punishment. 
They  admit  that  laws,  and  rewards,  and  punishments 
are  necessary  to  the  government  of  men,  and  just, 
when  administered  according  to  their  deeds.  Even 
atheists  and  fatalists  can  rail  against  superstition 
and  priestcraft,  and  bigotry,  and  persecution,  as 
deserving  execration  and  punishment;  an  evidence 
that  when  consciousness  and  common  sense  prevail, 
their  sceptical  theory  is  a  dead  letter.  A  nation  of 
atheists  were  constrained,  in  w^ords  and  deeds,  to 
falsify  their  philosophy;  and  in  the  family  and  in  the 
government,  to  talk  and  act  as  if  men  were  free 
agents,  and  accountable  for  their  deeds. 

XI.  All  attempts  to  govern  man  and  form  his  char- 
acter, and  elevate  his  condition,  upon  any  other  sup- 
position than  his  spontaneous  agency,  perverts  his 
nature  and  debases  society.  Just  in  proportion  as 
mental  culture  is  superseded  by  force,  he  sinks  in  the 
scale  of  being  till  he  becomes  a  stupid  or  a  ferecious 
animal.  Treat  men  as  if  they  were  dogs,  and  soon 
they  will  act  like  dogs.     But  the  moment  you  treat 


NATURAL   ABILITY.  47 

No  obligation  to  do  impossibilities.  God  cannot  work  impossibilities. 

them  as  free  moral  agents  and  responsible  for  their 
actions,  that  moment  you  begin  to  elevate  them: 
treat  a  child  with  affection,  repose  confidence  in 
him,  and  address  his  reason,  he  feels  that  he  is  raised, 
and  he  acts  accordingly;  and  just  as  you  depart  from 
this  course,  you  become  unable  to  manage  your  child. 
He  gets  out  of  your  hands-;  he  gets  above  you;  for  as 
respects  his  relation  to  you,  he  is  indomitable.  The 
will  of  man  is  stronger  than  anything  in  the  uni- 
verse, except  the  Almighty  God;  and  if  you  disregard 
this  truth,  you  ruin  your  child. 

XII.  God  requires  of  his  subjects  only  conformity 
to  himself — to  his  own  moral  excellence;  but  he 
admits  of  no  obligation  on  himself  to  work  impossi- 
bilities: and  does  he  m^?;o5e  obligations  on  his  subjects, 
which  he  himself  refuses  to  assume  ?  He  does  not  regard 
it  as  an  excellence  in  liimself  to  work  impossibilities: 
does  he  command  it  as  a  virtue  in  his  subjects? 

He  has  no  desire  to  work  impossibilities  himself: 
why  should  he  desire  it  in  his  creatures?  He  has 
never  tried^  and  never  will  iry^  to  work  an  impossibi- 
lity: and  why  should  he  command  his  creatures  to  do 
what  he  himself  neither  desires  nor  tries  to  accomplish? 
He  cannot  work  impossibilities:  and  how  can  it  be 
thought  that  he  will  require  of  his  creatures,  that 
which  he  himself  ca,nnot  do  ? 

XIII.  This  doctrine  of  the  natural  ability  of 
choice,  commensurate  with  obligation,  has  been,  and 
is,  the  received  doctrine  of  the  universal  orthodox 
church,  from  the  primitive  age  down  to  this  day. 
1   say  not  that  no  respectable   ministers  or   mem- 


48  NATURAL  ABILITY. 

Christian  fathers  ou  freedom  of  the  will.  Justin  Martyr. 

bers  of  the  churches  have  held  a  different  doctrine; 
but  I  say  that  their  number  is  so  small,  and  the  mul- 
titude so  great  and  continuous  ^Yho  have  taught  the 
contrary  doctrine,  that  it  stands,  unimpeached  and 
unbroken,  as  the  universally  received  doctrine  of  the 
orthodox  christian  church  in  all  ages. 

I  begin  with  the  doctrine  of  the  christian  fathers, 
as  quoted  by  Dr.  Scott,  in  his  remarks  on  Tomline's 
Refutation  of  Calvinism. 

It  is,  however,  to  be  remembered,  and  noted  care- 
fully in  reading  this  testimony  of  the  fathers,  that  by 
(-free  will,''  they  mean  a  will  free  as  opposed  to  the 
coercion  of  fate — the  supposed  necessity  of  a  series 
of  natural  causes,  by  which  the  wills  of  God  and  man 
w^ere  controlled.  The  question  whether  the  wall  is 
free  in  a  moral  sense,  as  biased  to  evil  since  the  fall, 
or  impartial  and  unbiased,  had  not  then  come  up  in 
the  church.  The  moral  bias  to  evil  was  admitted, 
taken  for  granted,  and  not  publicly  controverted  till 
the  time  of  Pelagius.  Their  doctrine  of  free  will, 
therefore,  is  not  the  Pelagian  or  Arminian  doctrine, 
but  the  anti-fatalism  doctrine  of  mind  free  as  unco- 
erced in  choice,  and  with  the  power  always  of  con- 
trary choice;  and  in  this  view,  I  begin  with  Justin 
Martyr,  A.  D.  140. 

'But  lest  any  one  should  imagine,  that  I  am  assert- 
ing that  things  happen  by  a  necessity  of  fate,  because 
I  have  said  that  things  are  foreknow^i,  I  proceed  to 
refute  that  opinion  also.  That  punishments  and 
chastisements  and  good  rewards  are  given  according 
to  the  worth  of  the  action  of  every  one,  having  learnt 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  49 

Freedom  of  the  will — Tatian,  Irenseus. 

it  from  the  Prophets,  we  declare  to  be  true:  since  if 
it  were  not  so,  but  all  things  to  happen  according  to 
FATE,  nothing  would  be  in  our  power;  for  if  it  were 
decreed  by  fate,  that  one  should  be  good,  and  another 
bad,  no  praise  would  be  due  to  the  former,  or  blame 
to  the  latter.  And  again,  if  mankind  had  not  the 
power,  by  free  will,  to  avoid  what  is  disgraceful  and 
to  choose  what  is  good,  they  would  not  be  responsi- 
ble for  their  actions.'     p.  13. 

'Because  God  from  the  beginning  endowed  angels 
and  men  with  free  will,  they  justly  receive  punish- 
ment of  their  sins  in  everlasting  fire.  For  it  is  the 
nature  of  every  one  who  is  born,  to  be  capable  of 
virtue  and  vice;  for  nothing  would  deserve  praise,  if 
it  has  not  the  power  of  turning  itself  away.'     p.  25. 

This  language  of  Justin  is  as  plain  as  it  can  be. 
That  to  free  agency  and  accountability,  the  natural 
ability  of  choice  with  power  to  the  contrary^  is  indis- 
pensable. 

Tatian,  A.  D.  172. — 'Free  will  destroyed  us.  Be- 
ing free,  we  became  slaves;  we  were  solely  because  of 
sin.  No  evil  proceeds  from  God.  We  have  produced 
wickedness;  but  those  who  have  produced  it  have  it 
in  their  power  again  to  remove  itJ^  p.  31.  [i.  e.  the 
natural  power  of  choosing  life  or  death.] 

Irenseus,  A.  D.  1 78. — '  But  man  being  endowed  with 
reason,  and  in  this  respect  like  to  God,  being  made 
free  in  his  will,  and  having  power  over  himself,  is  the 
cause  that  sometimes  he  becomes  wheat  and  some- 
times chaft'.  Wherefore  he  will  also  be  justly  con- 
demned; because,  being  made  rational,  he  lost  true 
5* 


50  NATURAL  ABILITY. 

Freedom  of  the  will — Clement,  Tertullian. 

reason;  and  living  irrationally,  he  opposed  the  justice 
of  God,  delivering  himself  up  to  every  earthly  spirit, 
and  serving  all  lusts.'  p.  35. 

'But  if  some  men  were  bad  by  nature,  (i.  e.  by  a 
natural  necessity)  and  others  good — neither  the  good 
would  deserve  praise,  for  they  were  created  so,  nor 
would  the  bad  deserve  blame,  being  born  so.  But 
since  all  men  are  of  the  same  nature,  and  able  to  lay 
hold  of  and  do  that  which  is  good,  and  able  to  reject 
it  again,  and  not  do  it,  some  justly  receive  praise, 
even  from  men,  w4io  act  according  to  good  laws,  and 
some  much  more  from  God;  and  obtain  deserved  tes- 
timony of  generally  choosing  and  persevering  in  that 
which  is  good:  but  others  are  blamed,  and  receive  the 
deserved  reproach  of  rejecting  that  which  is  just  and 
good.  And  therefore  the  Prophets  enjoined  men  to 
do  justice  and  perform  good  works.'  p.  42. 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  A.  D.  194. — 'Neither 
praise  nor  dispraise,  nor  honors  nor  punishments, 
would  be  just,  if  the  soul  had  not  the  power  of  de- 
siring and  rejecting — if  vice  were  involuntary.'  p.  54. 

'As  therefore  he  is  to  be  commended,  who  uses  his 
power  in  leading  a  virtuous  life;  so  much  more  is  he 
to  be  venerated  and  adored,  who  has  given  us  this 
free  and  sovereign  power,  and  has  permitted  us  to 
live — not  having  allowed  what  we  choose  or  what  we 
avoid  to  be  subject  to  a  slavish  necessity.'  p.  54. 

Tertullian,  A.  D.  200. — 'I  find  that  man  was  form- 
ed by  God  with  free  will  and  with  power  over  him- 
self, observing  in  him  no  image  or  likeness  to  God 
more  than  in  this  respect: — for  he  was  not  formed 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  51 

Freedom  of  the  will — Origen. 

after  God,  who  is  uniform  in  face,  bodily  lines,  &c. 
which  are  so  various  in  mankind,  but  in  that  substance 
which  he  derived  from  God  himself:  that  is,  the  soul — 
answering  to  the  form  of  God;  and  he  was  stamped 
with  the  freedom  of  his  will. 

'The  law  itself,  which  was  then  imposed  by  God, 
confirmed  this  condition  of  man.  For  a  law  would 
not  have  been  imposed  on  a  person  vv^ho  had  not  in 
his  power  the  obedience  due  to  the  law;  nor^  again^ 
would  transgression  have  been  threatened  with  death^ 
if  the  contempt  also  of  the  law  were  not  placed  to  the 
account  of  mail's  free  will, 

'He  who  should  be  found  to  be  good  or  bad  by 
necessity,  and  not  voluntarily,  could  not  with  justice 
receive  the  retribution  either  of  good  or  evil.'  p.  64. 
This  demands  no  comment. 

Origen,  A.  D.  220. — '  Whence,  consequently,  we 
may  understand,  that  we  are  not  subject  to  necessity, 
so  as  to  be  compelled  by  all  means  to  do  either  bad 
or  good  things,  although  it  be  against  our  will.  For 
if  we  be  masters  of  one  Vv^ill,  some  powers,  perhaps, 
may  urge  us  to  sin,  and  others  assist  us  to  safety; 
yet  we  are  not  compelled  by  necessity  to  act  either 
rightly  or  wrongly.' 

'  According  to  us,  there  is  nothing  in  any  rational 
creature,  w^hich  is  not  capable  of  good  as  well  as 
evil.  There  is  no  nature  that  does  not  admit  of  good 
and  evil,  except  that  of  God,  which  is  the  foundation  of 
all  good,''    p.  66. 

'  We  have  frequently  shown  in  all  our  disputations, 
that  the  nature  of  rational  souls  is  such  as  to  be  capa- 


52  NATURAL  ABILITY. 

Freedom  of  the  will — Cyprian,  Lactantius,  Eusebius. 

ble  of  good  and  evil.  Every  one  has  the  power  of 
choosiiig  good  and  choosing  evil,''     p.  67. 

'A  thing  does  not  happen  because  it  was  fore- 
known; but  it  was  foreknown,  because  it  would  hap- 
pen. This  distinction  is  necessary.  For  if  any  one 
so  interprets  what  was  to  happen  as  to  make  what 
was  foreknown  necessary,  we  do  not  agree  with  him ; 
for  we  do  not  say  that  it  was  necessary  for  Judas  to 
be  a  traitor,  although  it  was  foreknown  that  Judas 
would  be  a  traitor.  For  in  the  prophecies  concern- 
ing Judas,  there  are  complaints  and  accusations 
against  him,  publicly  proclaiming  the  circumstance 
of  his  blame;  but  he  would  be  free  from  blame,  if  he 
had  been  a  traitor  from  necessity,  and  if  it  had  been 
impossible  for  him  to  be  like  the  other  apostles.'  pp. 
80,  81. 

Cyprian,  A.  D.  248. — '  Yet  did  he  not  reprove 
those  who  left  him  or  threaten  them  severely,  but 
rather  turning  to  the  apostles  said,  "  Will  ye  also  go 
away?"  preserving  the  law,  by  which  man,  being  left 
to  his  own  liberty  and  endowed  icithfree  will,  seeks  for 
himself  death  or  salvation,^     p.  84. 

Lactantius,  A.  D.  306. — '  That  man  has  a.  free  will 
[i.  e.  able  to  choose  either  way]  to  believe  or  not  to 
believe — see  in  Deuteronomy,  "  I  have  set  before  you 
life  and  death,  blessing  and  cursing,  therefore  choose 
life  that  both  thou  and  thy  seed  may  live."  '     p.  88. 

Eusebius,  A.  D.  315. — 'The  fault  is  in  him  who 
chooses,  and  not  in  God.  For  God  has  not  made 
nature  or  the  substance  of  the  soul  bad;  for  he  who  is 
good  can  make  nothing  but  w^hat  is  good.     Every 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  53 

First  heresy — Pagan  notion  of  fate. 

thing  is  good  which  is  according  to  nature,  [i.  e.  as 
God  made  it.]  Every  rational  soul  has  naturally  a 
good  free  will  formed  for  the  choice  of  what  is  good. 
But  when  a  man  acts  wrongly,  nature  is  not  to  be 
blamed;  for  what  is  wrong  takes  place  not  according 
to  nature,  but  contrary  to  nature,  it  being  the  work 
of  choice  and  not  of  nature.  For  when  a  person 
who  had  the  power  of  choosing  what  is  good,  did  not 
choose  it,  but  voluntarily  turned  away  from  what  is 
best,  pursuing  what  was  worst;  what  room  for  escape 
could  be  left  him,  who  is  become  the  cause  of  his  own 
internal  disease,  having  neglected  the  innate  law,  as 
it  were,  his  savior  and  physician.'     p.  91. 

In  all  these  quotations,  I  repeat,  the  words  of  these 
fathers  must  be  expounded  with  regard  to  the  object 
at  which  their  writings  were  directed.  Let  it  not 
be  forgotten,  that  the  first  heresy  which  vexed  the 
church  after  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  was  the  Pagan 
notion  of  fate,  or  such  a  necessary  concatenation  of 
cause  and  effect,  as  was  above  the  will  both  of  gods 
and  men;  the  very  gods  themselves  had  no  power 
to  resist  it.  The  same  notion  was  involved  in  the 
heresy  of  the  Gnostics,  who  held  that  all  sin  lay  in 
matter,  and  that  man  was  a  sinner  from  necessity; 
and  of  the  Manicheans,  who  held  that  all  sin  was  in 
the  created  substance  of  the  mind.  Now  in  resisting 
these  heretics,  these  fathers  maintained  with  zeal  the 
doctrine  of  free  will:  meaning  thereby,  not  an  unbi- 
ased will,  but  a  will  free  from  the  necessity  of  fate; 
for  the  philosophers,  and  the  Gnostics,  and  the 
Manichean's  all  held  the  doctrine  of  man's  natural 


54  NATURAL  ABILITY. 


Freedom  of  the  will— Cyril,  Hilary,  Epiphanius. 


inability.  The  philosophers  derived  it  from  fate;  the 
Gnostics,  from  the  corruption  of  matter;  the  Mani- 
cheans,  from  the  constitution  and  nature  of  the  soul. 
This  was  the  first  great  attack  upon  the  truth,  on 
which  these  venerable  men  were  called  to  fix  their 
sanctified  vision,  and  it  was  against  these  several  ver- 
sions of  error,  that  they  bore  their  testimony  in  favor 
of  free  will. 

Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  A.  D.  348. — '  The  soul  has 
free  will :  the  devil  indeed  may  suggest,  but  he  has 
not  also  the  power  to  compel  contrary  to  the  will. 
He  suggests  the  thought  of  fornication — if  you  be 
willing,  you  accept  it;  if  unwilling,  you  reject  it:  for 
if  you  committed  fornication  hy  necessity^  why  did  God 
prepare  a  hell?  If  you  acted  justly  by  nature^  [i.  e. 
necessity]  and  not  according  to  your  own  free 
choice,  why  did  God  prepare  unutterable  rewards?' 
p.  103. 

Hilary,  A.  D.  304. — '  The  excuse  of  a  certain  na- 
tural necessity  in  crimes  is  not  to  be  admitted.  For 
the  Serpent  might  have  been  innocent,  who  himself 
stops  his  ears  that  they  may  he  deaf.''     p.   110. 

'  There  is  not  any  necessity  of  sin  in  the  nature  of 
men,  but  the  practice  of  sin  arises  from  the  desires  of 
the  will,  and  the  pleasures  of  vice.' 

EpiphaniuSjA.D.  360. — ^How  does  he  seem  to  retain 
the  freedom  of  his  will  in  this  world?  For  to  believe, 
or  not  to  believe,  is  in  our  own  power.  But  where 
it  is  in  our  power  to  believe  or  not  to  believe,  it  is  in 
our  power  to  act  rightly  or  to  sin,  to  do  good  or  to 
do  evil.' 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  55 

Freedom  of  the  will — Basil,  Gregory,  Ambrose. 

Basil,  A.  D.  370.—'  They  attribute  to  the  heavenly 
bodies  the  causes  of  those  things  that  depend  on  every 
one's  choice,  I  mean  habits  of  virtue  and  of  vice.' 

'  If  the  origi  n  of  virtuous  or  vicious  actions  be  not 
in  ourselves,  but  there  is  an  innate  necessity^  there  is 
no  need  of  legislators  to  prescribe  v^^hat  we  are  to  do 
and  what  we  are  to  avoid;  there  is  no  need  of  judges 
to  honor  virtue  or  punish  wickedness.  For  it  is  not 
the  injustice  of  the  thief  or  murderer  who  could  not 
restrain  his  hand  even  if  he  would,  because  of  the 
insuperable  necessity  that  urges  him  to  the  actions.' 
p.   116. 

Gregory  of  Nazianzen,  A.  D.  370. — 'The  good 
derived  from  nature  has  no  claim  to  acceptance; 
but  that  which  proceeds  from  free  wil  is  deserving 
of  praise.  What  merit  has  fire  in  burning?  for  the 
burning  comes  by  nature  [i.  e.  necessity.]  What 
merit  has  water  in  descending?  for  this  it  has  from 
the  Creator.  What  merit  has  snow  in  being  cold? 
or  the  sun  in  shining?  for  it  shines  whether  it  will  or 
not.'  p.  124. 

Gregory  of  Nyssa. — '  Let  any  consider  how  great 
the  facility  to  what  is  bad — ^gliding  into  sin  spontane- 
ously without  any  effort.  For  that  any  one  should 
become  wicked,  depends  solely  upon  choice;  and  the 
will  is  often  sufficient  for  the  completion  of  wicked- 
ness.'    p.  127. 

Ambrose,  A.  D.  374. — '  We  are  not  constrained  to 
obedience  by  a  servile  necessity,  but  by  free  will, 
whether  we  lean  to  virtue  or  to  vice.' 

'  No  one  is  under  obligation  to  commit  a  fault  un- 
less he  inclines  to  it  from  his  own  will.'     p.  131. 


56  NATURAL  ABILITY. 

Jerome.  Moral  Inability.  Pelagian  heresy. 

Jerome,  A.  D.  392. — '  No  seed  is  of  itself  bad;  for 
God  made  all  things  good;  but  bad  seed  has  arisen 
from  those,  who  by  their  own  will  are  bad,  which 
happens  from  will  and  not  from  nature,'  [i.  e.  neces- 
sity.]    p.  141 

'  That  we  profess  free  will  and  can  turn  it  either  to 
a  good  or  bad  purpose,  according  to  our  determina- 
tion, is  owing  to  His  grace,  who  made  us  after  His 
image  and  likeness.' 

We  have  now  come  to  Augustine.  And  now  it 
will  be  necessary  to  avail  myself  of  the  remarks  I 
made  on  the  laws  of  exposition.  I  said  that  it  was 
necessary,  in  order  to  a  right  exposition  of  any  ancient 
instrument  in  the  church,  to  take  into  view  the  con- 
troversies which  prevailed  at  the  time  of  its  composi- 
tion. We  must  now  apply  this  especially  to  Angus, 
tine.  Down  to  his  time,  the  free  will  and  natural 
ability  of  man  were  held  by  the  whole  church,  against 
the  heretical  notions  of  a  blind  fate,  of  material 
depravity,  and  of  depravity  created  in  the  substratum 
of  the  soul.  The  great  effort,  hitherto,  had  been  to 
maintain  the  liberty  or  uncoerced  action  of  the  mind 
in  choice,  with  the  power  of  contrary  choice.  But 
now  Pelagius  arose,  and  denied  the  doctrine  of  the 
fall;  and  from  this  spot  it  became  necessary,  not  so 
much  to  prove  natural  ability  which  Pelagius  admit- 
ted, as  to  prove  moral  inability^  which  was  as  much 
opposed  to  the  Pelagian  heresy,  as  natural  inability 
was  to  that  of  the  Pagan  philosophers,  the  Gnostics, 
and  Manicheans. 

The  church  had  now  to  enter  upon  a  new  contro- 
versy, and  to  fix  her  eye  upon  the  question,  what  were 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  57 

Freedom  of  the  will — Augustine. 

the  consequences  of  the  fall?  The  question  of  free 
agency  was  no  longer  to  be  argued,  for  that  was  not 
now  controverted.  Both  Augustine  and  Pelagius  ad- 
mitted it.  The  question  which  now  exists  between 
Dr.  Wilson  and  myself,  was  not  at  issue  between 
them.  The  question  indeed  turned  on  the  same 
words,  viz:  free  will;  but  it  did  not  mean  the  same 
thing.  The  question  between  them  was,  is  the  will 
unbiassed?  Is  it  in  equilibrio?  It  was  not,  whether 
it  was  free  from  the  necessity  of  fate,  or  the  coercion 
of  matter,  or  of  created  depravity;  but  the  question 
was,  has  the  fall  given  it  a  bias?  has  it  struck  it  out 
of  equilibrio?  and  struck  the  balance  wrong?  Pela- 
gius said,  no.  Augustine  said,  yes;  and  while  in  op- 
position to  Pelagius,  he  denied  free  ivill,  [meaning 
unbiassed  will]  he  was  as  strong  in  favor  of  free  will 
in  the  other  sense,  as  any  of  the  fathers  before  him; 
as  strong  as  I  am:  so  that  if  I  am  a  Pelagian,  Augus- 
tine was  a  Pelagian;  although  his  whole  strength 
was  exerted  against  Pelagius.  If  what  I  teach  is 
Pelagianism,  then  Augustine,  and  Calvin,  and  Luther, 
and  all  the  best  writers  of  the  church  in  this  age 
have  been  Pelagians,  except  the  few  who  deny  nat- 
ural ability. 

Augustine,  A.  D.  398. — '  Free  will  is  given  to  the 
soul,  which  they  who  endeavor  to  weaken  by  trifling 
reasoning,  are  blind  to  such  a  degree,  that  they  do  not 
even  understand  that  they  say  those  vain  and  sacri- 
legious things,  with  their  own  will.'     p.  176. 

'Which  free  will,  if  God  had  not  given,  there  could 
be  no  just  sentence  of  punishment,  nor  reward  for 

6 


58  NATURAL  ABILITY. 

Freedom  of  the  will — Luther. 

right  conduct,  nor  a  divine  precept  to  repent  of  sins, 
nor  pardon  of  sins,  which  God  has  given  us  through 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ;  because  he  who  does  not  sin 
with  his  will,  does  not  sin  at  all.  Which  sins,  as  I 
have  said,  unless  we  had  free  will,  would  not  be  sins. 
Wherefore,  if  it  be  evident  that  there  is  no  sin  where 
there  is  not  free  will,  I  desire  to  know,  what  harm  the 
soul  has  done,  that  it  should  be  punished  by  God,  or 
]*epent  of  sin,  or  deserve  pardon,  since  it  has  been 
guilty  of  no  sin.'     p.  214. 

'  That  there  is  free  will,  and  that  from  thence  eve- 
ry one  sins  if  he  wills,  and  that  he  does  not  sin,  if  he 
does  not  will,  I  prove  not  only  in  the  divine  scriptures, 
which  you  do  not  understand,  but  in  the  words  of  your 
own  Manes  himself:  hear  then  concerning  free  will, 
first,  the  Lord  himself  w^hen  he  speaks  of  two  trees, 
which  you  yourself  have  mentioned:  hear  him  saying, 
'Either  make  the  tree  good  and  his  fruit  good, or  else 
make  the  tree  corrupt  and  his  fruit  corrupt.'  When, 
therefore,  he  says,  'do  this  or  do  that,'  he  shows 
powder,  not  nature.  For  no  one,  except  God,  can 
make  a  tree,  but  evert  one  has  it  in  his  will,  either 
TO  choose  those  things  that  are  good  and  be  a  good 
tree;  or  to  choose  those  things  that  are  bad  and  be 
a  bad  tree.'  p.  215, 

The  next  authority  I  shall  adduce  is  that  of  Luther, 
who  holds  that,  in  the  exercise  of  its  own  faculties, 
the  mind  chooses,  by  its  very  constitution,  just  as 
much  as  it  thinks  by  the  exertion  of  its  intellect. 

'There  is,'  he  says,  'no  restraint  either  on  the  di- 
vine or  human  will.     In  both  cases  the  will  does 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  59 

Freedom  of  the  will— Calvin. 

what  it  does,  whether  good  or  bad,  simply,  and  as  at 
perfect  liberty,  in  the  exercise  of  its  own  faculty^ — so 
long  as  the  operative  grace  of  God  is  absent  from  us, 
every  thing  we  do,  has  in  it  a  mixture  of  evil;  and 
therefore,  of  necessity,  our  works  avail  not  to  salva- 
tion. Here  I  do  not  mean  a  necessity  of  coinpulsion^ 
but  a  necessity  as  to  the  certainty  of  the  event.  A  man 
who  has  not  the  Spirit  of  God,  does  evil  willingly  and 
spontaneously.  He  is  not  violently  impelled,  aganist 
his  will,  as  a  thief  is  to  the  gallows.' — 3IiInor,  vol.  v. 
cent.  16.  chap.  12.  sec.  2. 

Thus  we  see  that  it  was  Luther's  sentiment,  that 
depravity  does  not  destroy  the  innate  liberty  of  the 
will,  or  its  natural  power;  although  it  corrupts  and 
perverts  its  exercise. 

I  now  proceed  to  quote  from  Calvin,  who  holds 
that  necessity  is  voluntary,  that  is,  that  the  will  is 
under  no  such  necessity  as  destroys  its  own  power 
of  choice;  that  there  was  no  other  yoke  upon  man 
but  voluntary  servitude;  and  that  the  doctrine  for 
which  I  contend  is  not  new  divinity,  but  old  Calvin- 
ism, 

Calvin  says — 'That  God  is  voluntary  in  his  good- 
ness, Satan  in  his  wickedness,  and  man  in  his  sin.' 
'We  must  therefore  observe,'  he  says,  'that  man, 
having  been  corrupted  by  the  fall,  sins  voluntarily, 
not  with  reluctance  or  constraint;  with  the  strongest 
propensity  of  disposition,  not  with  violent  coercion; 
with  the  bias  of  his  own  passions,  and  not  with  exter- 
nal compulsion.'  He  quotes  Bernard,  as  agreeing 
with  Augustine,  in  saying,  'Among  all  the  animals, 


60  NATURAL  ABILITY. 

Freedom  of  the  will — Turretin. 

man  alone  is  free;  and  yet  by  the  intervention  of  sin, 
he  suffers  a  species  of  violence,  but  from  the  will,  not 
from  nature;  so  that  he  is  not  thereby  deprived  of  his 
innate  liberty/  Both  Augustine  and  the  Reformers 
speak,  indeed,  of  the  bondage  of  the  will,  and  of  the 
necessity  of  sinning,  and  of  the  impossibility  that  a 
natural  man  should  turn  and  save  himself  without 
grace;  but  they  explain  themselves,  to  mean  that  cer- 
tainty  of  continuance  in  sin,  which  arises  from  a  perver- 
ted free  agency,  and  not  from  any  natural  impossibility. 
For '  this  necessity,'  they  say  expressly, '  is  voluntary.' 
'We  are  oppressed  with  a  yoke,  but  no  other  than 
that  of  voluntary  servitude:  therefore  our  servitude 
renders  us  miserable,  and  our  will  renders  us  inexcu- 
sable.'    See  Calvbi^s  Instit.  Book  ii.  ch.  3.  sec.  5. 

'I  always  exclude  coercion,  for  we  sin  voluntarily, 
or  it  would  not  be  sin  unless  it  were  voluntary.' 
Commentary  on  Rom.  vii. 

My  next  quotation  is  from  Turretin,  th^  apostle  of 
orthodoxy,  whose  works  are  the  text  book  in  the 
Princeton  Seminary. 

'The  question  is  not  concerning  the  power  or  nat- 
uml  faculty  of  will,  "a  qua  est  ipsum  velle  vel  nolle," 
which  may  be  called,  first  power  and  the  material  prin- 
ciple of  moral  action;  for  this  always  remains  in  man, 
and  by  it  he  is  distinguished  from  the  brutes.' 

'Velle  vel  nolle'  means  in  the  technics  of  the  day, 
the  power  to  choose  or  not  to  choose  in  every  case; 
and  this  he  says  always  remains  in  man  in  every  con- 
dition, as  by  it  he  is  distinguished  from  the  brutes. 

•  The  natural  power  of  willing  in  whatever  condi- 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  61 

Freedom  of  the  will— Howe,  Witherspoon. 

tion  we  may  be,  is  never  taken  away  from  us,  inso- 
much as  by  it  we  are  distinguished  from  the  brutes.' 
p.  999. 

Howe  is  my  next  witness.  He  was  cotemporary 
with  the  Assembly  of  Divines  at  Westminster.  He 
quotes  the  following  with  approbation  from  Twiss. 

'The  inability  to  do  what  is  pleasing  and  accepta- 
ble to  God,  is  not  a  natural,  but  moral  inability;  for 
no  faculty  of  our  nature  is  taken  away  from  us 
by  original  sin:  as  saith  Augustine — It  has  taken 
from  no  man  the  faculty  of  discerning  truth.  The 
power  still  remains,  by  which  we  can  do  whatever 
we  choose.  We  say  that  the  natural  power  of  doing 
anything  according  to  our  will  is  preserved  to  all, 
but  no  moral  power.' 

Dr.  Witherspoon: — 'The  sinner  will  perhaps  say, 
But  why  should  the  sentence  be  so  severe?  The  law 
may  be  right  in  itself,  but  it  is  hard,  or  even  impossi- 
ble for  me.  I  have  no  strength.  I  cannot  love  the 
Lord  with  all  my  heart.  I  am  altogether  insufficient 
for  that  which  is  good.  Oh,  that  you  would  but  con- 
sider what  sort  of  inability  you  were  under  to  keep 
the  commandments  of  God.  Is  it  natural,  or  is  it 
moral?  Is  it  really  want  of  ability,  or  is  it  only 
want  of  will?  Is  it  anything  more  than  the  depravi- 
ty and  corruption  of  your  hearts,  which  is  itself  crim- 
inal, and  the  source  of  all  actual  transgressions?  Have 
you  not  natural  faculties  and  understanding,  will  and 
affections,  a  wonderful  frame  of  body  and  a  variety 
of  members?  What  is  it  that  hinders  them  all  from 
being  consecrated  to  God?  Are  they  not  as  proper 
6=^ 


e^  NATURAL  ABILITY. 

Freedom  of  the  will — Dr.  Watts,  Dr.  Samuel  Spring. 

in  every  respect  for  his  service,  as  for  a  baser  pur- 
pose? When  you  are  commanded  to  love  God  with 
all  your  heart,  this  surely  is  not  commanding  more 
than  you  can  pay.  For  if  you  give  it  not  to  him,  you 
will  give  it  to  something  else  that  is  far  from  being 
so  deserving  of  it.  The  law,  then,  is  not  impossible, 
in  the  strict  and  proper  sense,  even  to  you.' 

'He  (the  convinced  sinner,)  ivill  see  that  there  is 
nothing  to  hinder  his  comjHiance  with  every  part  of  his 
duty,  but  an  inward  aversion  to  God,  which  is  the  very 
essence  of  sinJ' 

'Without  perplexing  ourselves  with  the  meaning 
of  the  imputation  of  Adam's  first  sin,  this  we  may  be 
sensible  of,  that  the  guilt  of  all  inheritant  corruption 
must  he  personal.,  because  it  is  voluntary  and  consen- 
ted to.  Of  both  these  things  a  discovery  of  the  glory 
of  God  will  powerfully  convince  the  sinner.' 

Dr.  Watts: — 'Man  has  lost,  not  his  natural  power 
to  obey  the  law;  he  is  bound,  then,  as  far  as  natural 
powers  will  reach.  I  own  his  faculties  are  greatly 
corrupted  by  vicious  inclinations,  or  sinful  propensi- 
ties, which  has  been  happily  called  by  our  divines  a 
moral  inability  to  fulfil  the  law,  rather  than  a  natural 
impossibility  of  it.' 

Dr.  Samuel  Spring  of  Newburyport. — 'What  is 
moral  action?  A  moral  action  is  an  exercise  of  the 
will  or  heart  of  man.  A  moral  action  is  the  volition 
of  a  moral  agent.  Nothing  is  moral  which  is  not  vol- 
untary. It  is  as  absurd  to  talk  of  sin  separate  from 
moral  exercise  or  volition,  as  it  is  to  talk  of  whiteness 
separate  from  anything  which  is  white.' 


NATURAL  ABILITY. 


Freedom  of  the  will — Dr.  Spring  of  New  York,  Henry,  Dr.  Wilson. 

Dr.  Spring  of  New  York. — 'Seriously  considered, 
it  is  impossible  to  sin  without  acting  voluntarily. 
The  divine  law  requires  nothing  but  voluntary  obe- 
dience, and  forbids  nothing  but  voluntary  disobe- 
dience. As  men  cannot  sin  without  acting,  nor  act 
without  choosing  to  act,  so  they  must  act  voluntarily 
in  s'mnmg,^—^Spring^s  Essays^  p.  1 20. 

This  nature  of  sin,  as  actual  and  voluntary,  he  car- 
ries out  in  its  application  to  infants.     He  says: 

'Every  child  of  Adam  is  a  sinner  [an  actual  sinner] 
from  the  moment  he  becomes  a  child  of  Adam.  He 
sins  not  in  deed  nor  word,  but  in  thought.  The  thought 
of  foolishness  is  sin.  *  *  '^  Who  ever  heard  or 
conceived  of  a  living  immortal  soul  without  natural 
faculties  and  moral  dispositions?  Every  infant  that 
has  attained  maturity  enough  to  have  a  soul,  has  such 
a  soul  as  this.  It  is  a  soul  which  perceives,  reasons, 
remembers,  feels,  chooses,  and  has  the  faculty  of 
judging  of  its  own  moral  dispositions.' — Spring  on 
Native  Depr^avity^  pp.  10,  14. 

Henry  on  Ezekiel  xviii.  31.  'The  reason  why 
sinners  die,  is  because  they  will  die.  They  will  go 
down  the  way  that  leads  to  death,  and  not  come  up 
to  the  terms  on  which  life  is  offered.  Herein  sinners 
are  most  unreasonable  and  act  most  unaccountably.' 

Dr.  Wilson  of  Philadelphia.  '  No  mere  man  is  able, 
either  of  himself,  or  by  any  grace  received  in  this 
life,  perfectly  to  keep  the  commandments  of  God,' 
&c.  The  ability  which  is  here  denied  is  evidently 
of  the  moral  kind,  because  the  aid  of  the  inability  is 
supposed  to  be  grace,  which  adds  no  7iew  faculties. 


64  NATURAL  ABILITY. 

Freedom  of  the  will— Dr.  Wilson  of  Philadelphia. 

The   passage  taken  from  the  Confession   of  Faith, 
chap.  xvi.  is  a  representation  of  the  same    thing. 
'  This  ability  to  do  good  works  is  not  at  all  of  them- 
selves, but  wholly  from  the  Spirit  of  God.'     Here 
the  ability  spoken  of,  is  that  which  the  saint  has, 
and  the    sinner  has  not;  and  is  derived  from   the 
Spirit  of  God;  it  is  therefore  merely  the  effect  of 
regenerating  grace,  which  changes  the  hearty  removes 
the  prejudices ,f  and  thus  enlightens  the  understanding ; 
the  law  itself  ought  to  convince  such  minds  of  their 
inability  to  render  an  acceptable  righteousness,  and 
thus  lead  them  to  Christ.     In  all  these  instances,  the 
inability  consists  not  in  the  natural^  that  is  physical 
defects,  either  of  mind  or  body;  if  it  were  such,  it 
would  excuse;  but  it  consists  in  the  party's  aversion 
to  holiness.     This  is  also  clear  from  another  passage 
cited  in  the  essay,  page  15,  from  the  Confession  of 
Faith — '  A  natural  man  being  altogether  averse  from 
that  which  is  good,  and  dead  in  sin,  is  not  able,  by 
his  own  strength,  to  convert  himself,  or  to  prepare 
himself  thereto.'      Here    the  words  '  dead   in  sin^^ 
express  a  higher  degree  of  that  'aversion  to  good, 
which  had  been  predicted  of  man  in  his  natural  and 
unrenewed  state,  and  suppose  the  party  to  have  no 
more  disposition  to  things  spiritual  and  holy  than  a 
dead  carcass   possesses  towards   objects  of  sense. 
The  inability  or  want  of  strength  here  mentioned, 
is  affirmed  of  the  natural  man;  and  his  inability,  or 
that  circumstance  in  which  it  consists,  is  pointed  out 
expressly  by  the  intercalary  member,  '  being  alto- 
gether averse  from  that  which  is  good,  and  dead  in 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  65 

Freedom  of  the  will — Dickinson,  Davis,  Edwards,  Witsius. 

sin.'  Language  can  scarcely  be  found  more  clearly 
to  show,  that  the  only  culpable  inability  or  want  of 
strength  in  the  sinner,  lies  in  his  aversion  to  that 
which  is  goocV     pp.  14,  15. 

Dr.  Dickinson,  a  cotemporary  of  Dr.  Witherspoon 
in  New  Jersey,  and  a  cotemporary  also  with  Dr.  Green 
in  the  early  part  of  his  life,  has  this  sentiment  on  the 
point  of  discussion: '  Let  inability  be  properly  denom- 
inated and  called  obstinacy.'  This  was  a  divine  of 
admitted  and  unimpeachable  orthodoxy,  a  man  of 
eminent  abilities,  a  friend  to  revivals  of  religion,  and 
one  of  the  pillars  of  the  Presbyterian  church. 

President  Davis,  the  pioneer  and  planter  of  Pres- 
byterianism  in  Virginia,  afterward  president  of 
Princeton  college,  one  of  the  most  pungent,  popular, 
and  successful  of  preachers,  inquires, '  What  is  ina- 
biHty  but  unwillingness?' 

Edwards,  the  younger,  president  of  Union  college, 
was  a  Presbyterian,  and  what  does  he  say?  To  the 
question,  whether  the  moral  inability  which  his 
father  taught,  can  be  removed  by  the  sinner,  his  an- 
swer was:  '  Yes:  and  the  moment  you  deny  this,  you 
change  the  whole  character  of  the  inability  together 
with  the  whole  character  of  the  man;  for  then  his 
inability  ceases  to  be  obstinacy,  and  becomes  physi- 
cal incapacity.' 

Witsius.-^'  He  [Adam]  sinned  with  judgment  and 
will,  to  which  faculties,  liberty,  as  opposed  to  com- 
pulsion, is  so  peculiar,  nay  essential,  that  there  can 
be  neither  judgment  nor  will,  unless  they  be  free.' 
Vol.  i.  p.  198. 


66  NATURAL  ABILITY, 

Freedom  of  the  will— Andover  Declaration,  Dr.  Tyler. 

The  Andover  Declaration,  subscribed  by  the  profes- 
sors.— '  God's  decrees  perfectly  consist  with  human  li- 
berty, God's  universal  agency  with  the  agency  of  man, 
and  man's  dependence  with  his  accountability.  Man 
has  understanding  and  corporeal  strength  to  do  all 
that  God  requires  of  him;  so  that  nothing  but  the 
sinner's  aversion  to  holiness  prevents  his  salvation.' 
Laws,  p.  9. 

Dr.  Tyler:  see  National  Preacher,  vol.  ii.  pp. 
161,  163. — 'Several  doctrines  of  the  gospel^  have  been 
regarded  by  some  as  presenting  insuperable  obsta- 
cles to  their  salvation.' 

'  The  doctrine  of  Human  Depravity^  has  been  thus 
regarded.  If  I  am  entirely  depraved,  the  sinner  some- 
times says,  then  I  am  utterly  helpless.  It  is  beyond 
my  power  to  do  anything  which  God  requires;  and, 
consequently,  it  is  totally  impossible  that  I  should 
comply  with  the  terms  of  salvation  revealed  in  the 
gospel.  This  representation  proceeds  upon  an  entire 
misapprehension  as  to  the  nature  of  depravity.  De- 
pravity does  not  destroy  moral  agency.  It  does  not 
so  impair  the  natural  faculties  of  man,  as  to  disable 
him  from  doing  his  duty,  if  he  will.  It  has  its  seat  in 
the  heart,  and  consists  in  a  perverse  and  sinful  incli- 
nation. When  we  say,  that  man  is  entirely  depraved, 
we  do  not  mean  that  he  is  a  poor,  unfortunate  being, 
who  is  commanded  to  do  impossibilities;  but  we 
mean  that  he  is  a  guilty  rebel,  who  voluntarily 
refuses  to  yield  allegiance  to  the  God  who  made  him. 
We  mean,  that  he  loves  sin,  and  is  unwilling  to 
abandon  it;  that  he  hates  his  duty,  and  is  unwilling 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  67 


Freedom  of  the  will — Dr.  Tyler. 


to  perform  it;  that  he  dislikes  the  terms  of  salvation, 
and  is  unwilling  to  comply  with  them.  We  do  not 
mean,  that  all  the  powers  and  faculties  of  his  soul  are 
so  impaired,  that  he  could  not  do  his  duty  if  he  would; 
but  we  mean  that  he  loill  not  do  his  duty  when  he  can 
— that  in  the  full  possession  of  all  the  powers  of  moral 
agency^  and  with  j^^rfect  ability  to  comply  with  the 
terms  of  salvation,  if  he  will,  he  chooses  the  road  that 
leads  to  death,  and  will  not  come  to  Christ  that  he 
might  have  life.  This  supposes  no  difficulty  in  the 
way  of  his  salvation,  except  what  lies  in  a  perverse 
and  obstinate  will. 

'Again:  the  doctrine  oi  Regeneration,  is  supposed  to 
imply  an  insuperable  obstacle  in  the  way  of  the  sin- 
ner's salvation.  We  often  hear  the  sinner  reasoning 
thus — "If  I  must  be  born  again,  in  order  to  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  God;  and  if  this  change  is  exclusively 
the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  a  work  which  he  is 
under  no  obligations  to  perform,  and  which  my  own 
efforts  will  never  accomplish;  then,  there  is  a  diffi- 
culty in  the  way  of  my  salvation,  which  is  beyond 
my  power  to  remove.  It  does  not  depend  on  my 
will,  but  on  the  will  of  God,  whether  I  shall  be  saved." 
But  here  again  the  sinner  labors  under  an  entire 
misapprehension,  as  to  the  nature  of  the  change  in 
question,  and  as  to  the  reason  why  this  change  is 
necessary.  What  is  it  to  be  born  again?  Simply,  to 
be  made  willing  to  do  what  God  requires.  It  is  thus 
represented  in  the  scriptures.  Thy  people  shall  be  wil- 
ling in  the  day  of  thy  power.  Why  is  it  necessary, 
that  men  should  be  born  again?    Not  because  they 


68  NATURAL  ABILITY. 

Freedom  of  the  will — Dr.  Woods. 

are  unable  to  do  their  duty,  if  they  will;  but  because 
they  are  unwilling  to  do  it.  It  is  their  depravity 
which  renders  this  supernatural  change  necessary. 
But  their  depravity  is  not  their  calamity  merely,  but 
their  crime.  It  consists,  as  we  have  seen,  in  a  per- 
verse inclination;  in  a  voluntary  and  obstinate  refusal 
to  yield  obedience  to  the  reasonable  commands  of 
Jehovah.  What  the  sinner  needs,  therefore,  is  to 
have  this  perverse  inclination  changed;  that  is,  to  be 
made  ivilling  to  do  what  God  requires.  The  neces- 
sity of  this  change,  therefore,  supposes  no  obstacle  in 
the  way  of  his  salvation,  except  his  own  unwillingness 
to  do  his  duty.' 

Dr.  Woods:  Letters  to  Dr.  Ware,  ch.  v.  p.  183. — 
'  According  to  our  views,  there  can  be  no  such  neces- 
sity in  the  case,  as  implies  force  or  coercion,  or  any- 
thing contrary  to  perfect  voluntariness. 

'  What,  then,  is  the  freedom  which  belongs  to  a 
moral  agent?  It  is  freedom  from  that  physical  coer- 
cion or  force,  which  either  causes  actions  that  are 
not  voluntary;  or  prevents  those  which  the  agent 
chooses  to  perform. 

'  I  gi'ant  that  man  has  a  power  of  choosing  be- 
tween different  courses,  and  of  yielding  to  either  of 
two  opposite  motives.'  Remarks  on  Ware^  pp.  34, 
35,  36. 

'  Men  have  by  nature  the  constitution — they  have 
all  the  faculties,  essential  to  moral  agency.' 

Third  Letter  to  Dr.  Beecher;  Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims, 
vol.  vi.  No.  1,  pp.  19 — 22. — '  I  have  just  received  your 
sermon  on  Dependence  and  Free    Agency;    and, 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  69 


Freedom  of  the  will — Dr.  Woods. 


according  to  a  suggestion  in  your  last  letter  to  me, 
I  shall  proceed  to  remark  on  some  of  the  topics  which 
it  introduces. 

'  Between  your  views  and  mine  on  the  subject  of 
man's  ability  and  inability^  there  is  not,  so  far  as  I 
can  judge,  any  real  disagreement.     You  do  indeed 
sometimes  use  language  different  from  that  which  I 
am  accustomed  to  use.     But  when  you  come  to  ex- 
plain your  language,  as  you  do  in  your  second  letter, 
and  in  your  sermon  just  published,  you  show  that  you 
have  a  meaning  which  I  can  fully  adopt.     In  the  first 
place  you  do,  what  many  who  make  much  of  man's 
ability  neglect  to  do;  that  is,  you  clearly  make  the 
distinction  between  natural  ability  and  inability,  and 
moral.     Natural  ability  you  explain  to  be, "  the  intel- 
lectual and  moral  faculties  which  God  has  given  to 
men,  commensurate  with  his  requirements;" — "the 
plenary  powers  of  a  free  agent;" — "  such  a  capacity 
for  obedience  as  creates  perfect  obligation  to  obey." 
You  say,  it  is  "  what  the  law  means,  when  it  com- 
mands us  to  love  God  with  all  our  hearty  and  soul^ 
and  mind^  and  strength,'^''    The  sinner,  according  to 
your  representation,  is  under  no  natural  impossibility 
to  obey  God;  that  is,  it  is  not  impossible  for  him  to 
obey  God  in  the  same  sense  in  which  it  is  impossible 
for  him  "  to  create  a  world."     To  all  this  I  fully  sub- 
scribe.    Here  then  is  no  room  for  debate.     I  have 
been  acquainted  with  ministers   who  have  differed 
widely  in  their  language  respecting  human  ability, 
and  who  have  had  much  debate  on  the  subject,  and 
have  seemed  to  entertain  opposite  opinions.     But  I 

7 


70  NATURAL  ABILITY. 

Freedom  of  the  will — Dr.  Woods. 

doubt  not,  they  would  all  coincide  with  the  above 
statements.      They  would  all  admit  that  man  has 
those  intellectual  and  moral  faculties  which  consti- 
tute him  a  moral  agent,  justly  accountable  for  his 
actions,  and  under   perfect  obligation  to  obey  the 
divine  law.     But  all  would  not  judge  it  best  to  give 
to  these  faculties  the  name  of  ability,  or  even  of  na- 
tural ability.     In  regard  to  the  words  by  which  the 
sentiment,  held  by  them  all,  may  most  properly  be 
expressed,  there  would  be  a  difference.     And  would 
not  this  be  the  only  difference?     And  would  not  any 
dispute   on   the    subject  be  logomachy?    Suppose  a 
minister  of  Christ  does  not  like  the  expression,  that 
sinners   have  a  natural  ability  to  obey  the    divine 
law.     But  he  admits  that  they  have  those  faculties  of 
mind  which  constitute  them  moral  and  accountable 
beings,  put  them  under  a  perfect  obligation  to  obey, 
and  bring  on  them  a  just  condemnation  for  disobedi- 
ence.    That   is,  he   admits  all  that   you   mean   by 
natural  ability,  though  he  does  not  use  the  language. 
Respecting  this,  you  and  he  may  differ.     But   the 
moment  you  lay   aside  the  word,   ability,   and  use 
other  words  expressing  exactly  what  you  mean  by 
this,  the  difference  between  you  and  him  is  ended. 
You  both  believe  that  sinners  have  all  the  powders 
necessary  to  moral  agents,  and  that  they  are  under 
perfect  obligation  to  do  what  God  commands;  though 
you  may  perhaps  attach  more  importance   to  this 
view  of  the  subject,  and  may  give  it  more  importance 
in  your  preaching,  than  he  thinks  proper. 

'The  same  as  to  inability*     I  find  from  your  expla- 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  71 

Freedom  of  the  will — Dr.  Woods. 

nations,  that  you  believe  the  sinner  to  be  the  subject 
of  all  the  inability  which  I  have  ever  attributed  to 
him.  You  say  that  man,  in  his  unrenewed  state,  is 
'•  destitute  of  holiness  and  prone  to  evil;"  that  he  has 
"  an  inflexible  bias  of  will  to  evil;"  "  a  sinfulness  of 
heart  and  obliquity  of  will,  which  overrule  and  per- 
vert his  free  agency  only  to  purposes  of  evil;"  that 
he  has  "  an  obstinate  will,  which  as  really  and  cer- 
tainly demands  the  interposition  of  special  divine 
influence,  as  if  his  inability  were  natural;"  that  "  his 

NATURAL  ABILITY  NEVER  AVAILS,  EITHER  ALONE,  OR  BY  ANY 
POWER  OF  TRUTH,  OR  HELP  OF  MAN,  TO  RECOVER   HIM  FROM 

ALIENATION  TO  OBEDIENCE;"  that  "the  special  renovating 
influence  of  the  Spirit  is  indispensable  to  his  salva- 
tion;" "  that  motives  and  obligation  are  by  his  obsti- 
nacy swept  away;"  and  "  that  it  is  the  work  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  to  convince  him  of  sin^  to  enlighten  his 
mind^  lo  renew  his  will^  and  to  persuade  and  enable 
him  to  embrace  Christ;"  that  "  the  powers  requisite 
to  free  agency,  which  still  remain  in  degenerate  man, 
are  wholly  perverted,  and  hopeless  of  recovery^  with- 
out the  grace  of  God;"  "that  men,  as  sinners,  are 
dependant  on  Christ  for  a  willingness  to  do  any  thing 
which  will  save  their  souls."  You  hold  it  to  be  "  a 
fact,  that  mind,  once  ruined,  never  recovers  itself;" 
that  the  disease  rages  on,  unreclaimed  by  its  own 
miseries,  and  only  exasperated  by  rejected  reme- 
dies;" that  "  the  main-spring  of  the  soul  for  holy 
action,  is  gone,  and  that  divine  influence  is  the  only 
substitute." 

'You  not  only  make  these  just  and  moving  repre- 


72  NATURAL  ABILITY. 

Freedom  of  the  will — Dr.  Woods. 

sentations  of  the  state  of  unregenerate  man,  but  you 
expressly  speak  of  him  as  having  an  inability  to  obey 
God.  You  make  the  "  distinction  between  the 
ability  of  man  as  a  free  agent,  and  his  inability  as  a 
sinner,'^  and  say,  "  it  is  a  distinction  singularly  plain, 
obvious  to  popular  apprehension,  and  sanctioned  by 
the  common  sense  of  all  men.*'  You  fully  justify  the 
language  of  the  Bible  in  ascribing  to  man,  "  inability 
to  obey  the  gospel."  You  quote  the  passages  which 
declare,  that  "the  carnal  mind  cannot  be  subject  to 
the  law  of  God; — that  they  who  are  in  the  flesh  can- 
not please  God;"  and  you  say  the  inability  spoken  of 
means  the  impossibility  of  becoming  holy  by  any  phi- 
losophical culture  of  the  natural  powers,  or  by  any 
possible  modification  of  our  depraved  nature;"  though 
you  very  properly  take  care  to  guard  us  against  sup- 
posing, that  the  inability  of  sinners  implies  "an  abso- 
lute natural  impossibility,"  or  has  "  r passive,  material 
import."  You  say,  also,  that  "  no  language  is  more 
frequent  in  the  common  intercourse  of  men,  than  the 
terms,  unable,  cannot,  and  the  like,  to  express  slight, 
or  determined  and  unchanging  aversion;  and  that  the 
same  use  of  these  terms  pervades  the  Bible;"  that 
"  inability,  meaning  only  voluntary  aversion,  or  per- 
manent choice  or  disinclination,  is  ascribed  to  God, 
to  Christ,  and  to  good  men  in  as  strong  terms,  as  ina- 
bility to  obey  the  gospel  is  ascribed  to  sinners." 

'  In  regard  to  the  above  cited  representations  of 
yours,  I  see  no  ground  for  controversy.  I  am  aware 
that,  in  your  preaching,  you  are  accustomed  to  say 
less  frequently  than  many  others,  that  sinners  cannot 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  73 

Freedom  of  the  will — Dr.  Woods. 

believe  and  obey.  But  even  if  you  should  think  it 
best,  as  some  do,  to  go  farther,  and  wholly  to  avoid 
expressions  of  that  kind;  still  while,  in  other  words, 
you  attribute  to  the  sinner  every  thing  which  I  and 
others  mean  by  such  expressions,  there  would  be  no 
difference  except  in  words.  In  the  unmeasured  abun- 
dance of  remarks  which  have  lately  been  made  on 
the  subject  of  ability  and  inability,  it  has  not  been 
always  remembered  that  the  principal,  if  not  the  only 
difference,  which  exists  among  thinking  and  candid 
men,  is  verbal.     If  this   should  be  kept  in  mind,  as  it 

OUGHT  TO  BE,  AND  IF  MEN  WHO  ARE  GOING  TO  DISPUTE, 
WOULD  JUST  STOP  TO  INQUIRE  WHAT  THEY  ARE  GOING  TO 
DISPUTE  ABOUT,  IT  WOULD  VERY  MUCH  NARROW  THE 
GROUND  OF  DEBATE,  AND  DIMINISH,  IF  NOT  REMOVE,  THE 
OCCASIONS  OF  STRIFE. 

'  Still  I  hold  the  question  about  the  use  of  particular 
words  to  be  of  no  small  importance.  Words  are  the 
usual  means  of  conveying  the  thoughts  of  our  own 
minds  to  the  minds  of  others.  If  then  our  words  are 
not  well  chosen,  we  may  fail  of  communicating  what 
we  wish,  and  may  communicate  something  very 
different;  and  so  the  gift  of  speech,  instead  of  con- 
tributing to  useful  purposes,  may  become  positively 
hurtful. 

'  It  is  not  my  design  to  controvert  any  of  the  posi- 
tions which  you  lay  down  on  the  subject  of  ability 
and  inabilty.  Putting  a  candid  and  fair  construction 
on  your  language,  and  considering  you  as  agreeing 
with  those  excellent  authors  to  whom  you  refer  with 
approbation,  I  am  satisfied,  as  I  have  before  said, 
7* 


NATURAL  ABILITY. 


Freedom  of  the  will — Dr.  Bellamy. 


that  there  is  no  material  difference  between  your 
opinions  and  mine  on  this  subject.  My  remarks 
therefore  will  relate  chiefly,  if  not  wholly,  to  modes  of 
expression;  though  not  so  much  to  any  which  you  em- 
ploy, as  to  those  employed  by  others.  There  is 
danger,  I  think,  of  a  wrong  impression  being  made  on 
the  minds  of  men  from  the  manner  in  which  some 
preachers  speak  respecting  the  sinner's  ability.  And 
although  there  is  much  in  what  you  have  lately 
given  to  the  public,  which  is  well  calculated  to  guard 
against  this  danger,  I  humbly  conceive  that  still 
greater  caution  in  your  manner  of  treating  the  sub- 
ject, would  do  no  hurt.' 

Dr.  Bellamy. — 'The  law  is  exactly  upon  a  level 
wdth  our  natural  capacities;  it  only  requires  us  to 
love  God  with  all  our  hearts.  Hence,  as  to  natural 
capacity^  all  mankind  are  capable  of  a  perfect  conform- 
ity to  this  law;  for  the  law  requu'es  of  no  man  any 
more  than  to  love  God  with  all  his  heart.  The  sin- 
ning angels  have  the  same  natural  capacities  now,  as 
they  had  before  they  fell ;  they  have  the  same  facul- 
ties^ called  the  understanding  and  will;  they  are  still 
the  same  beings  as  to  their  natural  powers.  Their 
temper^  indeed,  is  different;  but  their  capacity  is  the 
same;  therefore,  as  to  natural  capacity^  they  are  as  ca- 
pable of  a  perfect  conformity  to  the  law  of  their  Cre- 
ator as  ever  they  were.  So  Adam,  after  his  fall,  had  the 
same  soul  that  he  had  before,  as  to  his  natural  capa- 
cities^ though  of  a  very  different  temper;  and  therefore, 
in  that  respect,  was  as  capable  of  a  perfect  conformity 
to  the  law  as  ever.    And  it  is  plainly  the  case,  that 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  75 

Freedom  of  the  will — Dr.  Samuel  Hopkins. 

all  mankind,  as  to  their  natural  capacities^  are  capable 
of  a  perfect  conformity  to  the  law,  from  this,  that 
when  sinners  are  converted,  they  have  no  new  nat- 
ural faculties  though  they  have  a  new  temper;  and 
when  they  come  to  love  God  with  all  their  hearts  in 
heaven,  still  they  will  have  the  same  hearts^  as  to  their 
natural  faculties^  and  may,  in  this  respect,  be  justly 
looked  upon  as  the  very  same  beings.  When,  therefore, 
men  cry  out  against  the  holy  law  of  God,  which  re- 
quires us  only  to  love  him  with  all  our  hearts,  and 
say,  "It  is  not  just  in  God  to  require  more  than  we 
can  do,  and  then  threaten  to  damn  us  for  not  doing," 
they  ought  to  stay  awhile,  and  consider  what  they 
say,  and  tell  what  they  mean  by  their  can  do;  for  it 
is  plain,  that  the  law  is  exactly  upon  a  level  with  our 
natural  capacities,  and  that,  in  this  respect,  we  are 
fully  capable  of  a  perfect  conformity  thereto.  And 
it  will  be  impossible  for  us  to  excuse  ourselves  by  an 
inability  arising  from  any  other  quarter."  "And 
finally,  this  want  of  a  good  temper,  this  voluntary 

AND  STUBBORN  AVERSION  TO  GoD,  AND  LOVE  TO  THEM- 
SELVES, THE  WORLD,  AND  SIN,  IS  ALL  THAT  RENDERS  THE 
IMMEDIATE  INFLUENCES  OF  THE  HoLY  SpIRIT  SO  ABSO- 
LUTELY NECESSARY,  OR  INDEED  AT  ALL  NEEDFUL,  TO  RE- 
COVER AND    BRING   THEM   TO    LOVE    GoD    WITH   ALL   THEIR 

HEARTS."  ' — True  Religion  Delineated,  Disc.  I.  Sec.  3. 
Dr.  Samuel  Hopkins. — 'It  has  been  thought  and 
urged  by  many,  that  fallen  man  cannot  be  wholly 
blameable  for  his  moral  depravity,  because  he  has 
lost  his  power  to  do  that  which  is  good,  and  is  wholly 
unable  to  change  and  renew  his  depraved  heart.  But 


76  NATURAL  ABILITY. 

Freedom  of  the  will — Dr.  Smalley. 

what  has  been  before  observed  must  be  here  kept  in 
mind,  that  man  has  not  lost  any  of  his  natural  powers 
of  understanding  and  will,  &c.,  by  becoming  sinful. 
He  has  lost  his  inclination,  or  is  wholly  without  any 
inclination  to  serve  and  obey  his  Maker,  and  entirely 
opposed  to  it.  In  this  his  sinfulness  consists;  and  in 
this  lies  his  blame  and  guilt,  and  in  nothing  else ;  and 
the  stronger  and  more  fixed  the  opposition  to  the  law 
of  God  is,  and  the  farther  he  is  from  any  inclination 
to  obey,  the  more  blameable  and  inexcusable  he  is. 
Nothing  but  the  opposition  of  the  heart,  or  will  of 
man,  to  coming  to  Christ,  is  or  can  be  in  the  way  of 
his  coming.  So  long  as  this  continues,  and  his  heart 
is  wholly  opposed  to  Christ,  he  cannot  come  to  him, 
it  is  impossible,  and  will  continue  so,  until  his  unwil- 
lingness, his  opposition  to  coming  to  Christ,  be  re- 
moved by  a  change  and  renovation  of  his  heart  by 
divine  grace,  and  be  made  willing  in  the  day  of  God's 
power.'  'Nothing  is  necessary  but  the  renovation 
of  the  will^  in  order  to  set  every  thing  right  in  the 
human  soul.' — Sijstem  of  Divinitij^  Part  I.  Ch.  8,  and 
Part  II.  Ch.  4. 

Dr.  Smalley. — 'The  whole  Bible  evidently  goes 
upon  the  supposition  that  man  is  a  free  agent;  and  so 
do  all  mankind  in  their  treatment  of  one  another.' 
'It  is  certain  that  no  natural  men,  except  idiots,  or 
such  as  are  quite  delirious,  are  totally  incapable  of 
good  works  for  want  of  understanding.'  '  The  power 
of  will  is  not  the  deficiency  in  natural  men.'  'Were 
men  destitute  of  understanding  to  know  what  is  right; 
or  destitute  of  power  to  choose  according  to  their 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  77 


Freedom  of  the  will— Dr.  Stephen  West,  Dr.  Nathan  Strong. 


own  disposition;  or  destitute  of  members  to  act,  ac- 
cording to  their  own  choice ;  they  would  so  far  not 
be  proper  subjects  of  commands,  and  no  blame  would 
lie  upon  them  for  not  obeying.  But  no  such  powers 
of  moral  agency  are  the  things  wanting  in  natural 
men.  They  have  hands  and  heads  sufficiently  good; 
and  a  sufficient  power  to  will  whatever  is  agreeable 
to  them.  All  they  want  is  a  good  heart.  Their  in- 
ability is  therefore  their  sin,  and  not  their  excuse.'— 
Sermons  10,  16. 

Dr.  Stephen  West.— 'It  therefore  appeareth,  that 
all  those  voluntary  exercises  and  affections  which  are 
required  of  us  in  the  divine  law,  may  be  said  to  be  in 
our  power.  There  is  no  opposition  to  any  obedience 
which  is  claimed  by  the  divine  law,  except  it  be  in 
our  wills.'— O/i  Moral  Agency^  Part  I.  Sec.  2. 

Dr.  Nathan  Strong.— 'Here  the  proud  heart  ob- 
jects. Can  this  be  cause  of  rejoicing,  that  I  am  in  the 
hand  of  a  most  absolute  sovereign?  Is  this  consis- 
tent with  my  dignity  as  a  rational  creature  and  a  free 
agent?  Truly  it  is.  If  thy  reason  be  exercised  right, 
all  its  dictates  will  be  in  conformity  to  the  sovereign 
counsel  and  acting  of  God.  If  thy  heart  be  opposed 
to  infinite  reason,  or  prejudices  thy  reason,  it  is  the 
depravity  of  thy  heart,  and  not  the  sovereignty  of 
God,  which  degrades,  and  takes  dignity  away  from 
thee.  Neither  is  thy  dignity  as  a  free  agent  lessened. 
Art  thou  not  as  free  in  sinning,  as  the  holy  angels 
and  holy  men  are  in  loving  and  obeying  God?  Is  not 
sin  thy  choice?  Dost  thou  not  sin  because  thou  lovest 
sin?    The  sovereignty  of  God  will  never  destroy  thy 


78  NATURAL  ABILITY. 

Freedom  of  the  will — Dr.  Dwight.. 

freedom  as  a  rational  agent,  but  an  evil  use  of  this 
freedom  hath  made  thee  base,  and  without  repentance, 
will  be  the  means  of  thy  misery  forever.' — Sermons^ 
vol.  I.  Ser.  4. 

Dr.  Dwight. — '  The  nature  of  this  inability  to  obey 
the  law  of  God  is,  in  my  own  view,  completely  indi- 
cated by  the  word  indisposition^  or  the  word  disincli- 
nation,'' 'The  real  and  only  reason  why  we  do  not 
perform  this  obedience  [perfect  obedience  to  the  law 
of  God]  is,  that  we  do  not  possess  such  a  disposition 
as  that  of  angels.  Our  natural  powers  are  plainly 
sufficient:  our  inclination  only  defective.'  'There  is 
no  more  difficulty  in  obeying  God,  than  in  doing  any 
thing  else,  to  which  our  inclination  is  opposed  with 
equal  strength  and  obstinacy.'  'Indisposition  to  come 
to  Christ,  is  the  true  and  the  only  difficulty  which 
lies  in  our  way.  Those  who  cannot  come,  therefore, 
are  those,  and  those  only,  w^ho  will  not.  The  words 
can  and  cannot^  are  used  in  the  Scriptures,  just  as 
they  are  used  in  the  common  intercourse  of  mankind, 
to  express  willingness  or  unwillingness,''  'From  these 
observations  it  is  evident,  that  the  disobedience  of 
mankind  is  their  own  fault.'  And  '  the  degree  of  our 
inability  to  obey  the  divine  law,  does  in  no  case  les- 
sen our  guilt.'  And  'these  observations  teach  us  the 
propriety  of  urging  sinners  to  immediate  repentance.' 
— r/ieo/o^-?/.  Sermon  133. 

The  Assembly's  narrative  for  1819,  declares  that 
the  destruction  of  the  finally  impenitent  is  charged 
'wholly  upon  their  own  unwillingness  to  accept  of 
the  merciful  provision  made  in  the  gospel.' 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  79 

Freedom  of  the  will — Dr.  John  Matthews. 

Rev.  John  Matthews,  D.  D.,  Theological  Professor 
of  South  Hanover  Seminary,  commended  by  Dr. 
Wilson  as  correct. — 'Our  case  though  in  some  res- 
pects it  bears  a  striking  resemblance  to  those  who 
sleep  in  the  grave,  yet  in  others  is  widely  different. 
They  make  no  opposition  to  the  active  pursuits  of 
life.  Nor  does  any  blame  attach  to  them  on  account 
of  their  insensibility.  Not  so,  however,  with  us.  We 
have  eyes,  but  we  see  not;  ears,  but  we  hear  not;  we 
have  indeed  all  the  intellectual  faculties  and  moral 
powers  which  belong  to  rational  beings,  but  they  are 
devoted  to  the  world;  they  are  employed  against  God 
and  his  government.  Instead  of  love,  the  heart  is 
influenced  by  enmity  against  God.  Instead  of  re- 
pentance, there  is  hardness  of  heart.  Instead  of  faith, 
by  which  the  Savior  is  received^  there  is  unbelief  by 
which  with  all  his  blessings  he  is  rejected.  We  pos- 
sess, indeed,  all  the  natural  faculties  which  God  de- 
mands in  his  service;  but  we  are  without  the  moral 
power.  We  have  not  the  disposition,  the  desire,  to 
employ  them  in  his  service.  This  want  of  disposition, 
instead  of  furnishing  the  shadow  of  excuse  for  our 
unbelief  and  impenitence,  is  the  very  essence  of  sin, 
the  demonstration  of  our  guilt.  Here,  then,  is  work 
for  Omnipotence  itself.  Here  is  not  only  insensibility 
to  be  quickened,  but  here  is  opposition,  here  is  enmity 
to  be  destroyed.  The  art  and  maxims  of  men  may 
change,  in  some  degree,  the  outward  appearances, 
but  they  never  can  reach  the  seat  of  the  disease. 
There  it  will  remain,  and  there  it  will  operate,  after 
all  that  created  wisdom  and  power  can  do.     That 


NATURAL  ABILITY. 


Freedom  of  the  will — Dr.  Wilson. 


power  which  can  start  the  pulse  of  spiritual  life 
within  us,  must  reach  and  control  the  very  origin  of 
thought,  must  change  our  very  motives.  Our  case 
would  be  hopeless,  if  our  restoration  depended  on 
the  skill  and  efforts  of  created  agents.' 

I  now  beg  leave  to  adduce  the  testimony  of  Dr. 
Wilson  himself.  This  passage  from  Dr.  Matthews 
goes  the  whole  length  of  all  that  I  hold  in  respect  to 
natural  ability.  If  this  is  not  heresy,  it  is  all  I  mean, 
and  all  I  teach,  or  ever  did  teach.  If  Dr.  Wilson  is 
not  opposed  to  this,  then  he  has  misunderstood  me, 
and  he  and  I  think  alike.  If  he  agrees  to  this,  then 
he  and  I  do  agree;  for  I  challenge  man  or  angel  to  find 
anything  like  a  discrepancy,  and  I  challenge  him  to 
find  any.  That  he  does  agree  to  this  is  manifest,  and 
two  things  which  are  equal  to  the  same,  are  equal  to 
each  other.   In  the  notes  he  says: 

*Thus  it  is  evident,  that  without  conference  or 
correspondence,  or  even  personal  acquaintance,  there 
are  ministers  in  the  Presbyterian  church,  who  can 
and  do  speak  the  same  things,  who  can  and  do  speak 
the  language  of  the  true  reformers  in  all  ages.  May 
the  Lord  increase  their  number  and  bind  up  the  breach 
of  his  people.' 

My  argument  is  this: — The  fact  that  these  writers 
held  the  opinions  which  they  have  here  declared,  I 
do  not  bring  as  proof  absolute  that  the  Confession  of 
Faith  teaches  as  they  held;  but  that  it  is  altogether 
probable  the  framers  of  that  instrument  belonging  to 
this  class  of  men,  and  standing  in  the  same  rank  with 
them,  did  not  teach  doctrines  in  direct  contradiction 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  81 

Qualifications  for  moral  gov't — natural  ability-— scriptural  argument. 

to  this.  I  have  brought  down  these  testimonies  to 
the  present  time,  because  these  expositions  throw 
light  upon  the  pages  of  the  Confession,  by  showing 
the  impression  which  it  made  on  these  writers,  and 
the  sense  in  which  they  received  it.  It  would  be  one 
of  the  strongest  anomalies  in  the  whole  history  of  the 
human  mind,  that  men  who  knew  all  about  the  con- 
troversy of  Augustine  and  Pelagius,  as  well  as  the 
controversy  which  preceded,  should,  when  they  sat 
down  to  make  a  Confession  of  Faith,  go  directly 
against  the  whole  stream  of  the  Faith  of  the  church. 

Such  is  the  testimony  of  the  Christian  fathers,  and 
the  received  doctrine  of  the  orthodox  church,  from 
the  beginning  to  this  day.     I  now  add: 

XIV.  That  the  Bible  teaches  the  free  agency  and 
natural  ability  of  man  to  obey  or  disobey,  uncoerced 
by  any  natural  necessity  or  hindrance,  as  his  qualifi- 
cation for  moral  government,  and  the  foundation  of 
his  obligation  and  accountability. 

1.  That  the  Bible  has  been  understood  to  teach 
this  by  the  universal  orthodox  church,  is  a  strong 
presumptive  argument  that  the  Bible  does  teach  it. 

It  was  made  to  be  understood  by  fallen  man,  and 
by  common  uneducated  minds,  in  respect  to  its  most 
vital  doctrines;  and  there  is  no  doctrine  more  immedi- 
ately fundamental,  than  that  of  free  agency  as  the 
ground  of  obligation  and  accountability.  Now,  the 
impression  which  the  Bible  makes  on  common  minds, 
who,  unsophisticated  by  theory,  read  and  receive  its 
impression,  is,  that  there  remains  to  man,  in  the  esti- 
mation of  heaven,  the  capacity  of  choosing  whom  he 

8 


82  NATURAL  ABILITY. 

The  Bible  understood  by  the  holiest  men  as  teaching  natural  ability. 

will  serve,  God  or  the  world,  and  of  choosing  life  or 
death;  and  that  his  obligation  to  choose  good  and 
refuse  the  evil,  originates  in  their  constitutional  power 
of  choice,  with  power  of  contrary  choice.  This  is 
the  popular  feeling  and  belief  of  those  who  read  the 
Bible. 

But  if  the  uninstructed  may  be  supposed  to  mis- 
take, it  was  certainly  intended  to  be  intelligible  to 
the  most  talented,  learned,  and  holy  men,  who  make 
the  study  and  translation  and  exposition  of  it  their 
profession  and  habitual  employment. 

But  unanswerably  the  Bible  has  been  understood 
to  teach  the  doctrine  of  man's  free  agency  and  natu- 
ral ability,  in  the  manner  I  have  above  explained,  by 
the  ablest,  holiest,  and  most  learned  men.  These, 
interpreting  the  Bible  in  accordance  with  the  laws  of 
language  and  the  best  operations  of  sanctified  intel- 
lect, have  understood  it  to  teach  the  natural  ability 
of  man,  as  the  foundation  of  obligation,  and  the 
moral  inability  of  man  as  consisting  in  a  perverse 
will.  If  this  decision  of  so  many  men  of  talented 
mind,  and  learning,  and  labor,  is  false,  all  attempts 
to  expound  the  Bible  are  vain — the  Bible  is  yet  a 
sealed  book — and  all  the  promises  of  wisdom  to  those 
who  ask,  and  of  guidance  in  judgment  to  the  meek, 
have,  unanswered,  been  scattered  to  the  wind. 

2.  The  implications  of  the  Bible  teach  the  free 
agency  of  man  as  including  a  natural  ability  to 
obey,  as  the  qualification  for  moral  government,  and 
the  foundation  of  accountability. 

The  directory  precepts,  the  commands  and  prohi- 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  83 

Commands,  prohibitions,  &c.  of  the  Bible,  imply  natural  ability. 

bitions,  the  rewards  and  punishments,  the  exhorta- 
tions, warnings,  entreaties,  and  expostulations  of 
the  Bible  teach  this — the  oath  of  God's  preference 
that  fallen  man  should  obey  rather  than  disobey; 
and  the  regrets  and  the  wonder  of  heaven  at  his 
obstinacy  and  unbelief,  teach  the  same;  and  the 
punishment,  executed  not  only  for  what  he  did 
do  that  was  w^rong,  but  because  in  place  of  this, 
he  did  not  do  what  was  right,  because  he  did  not  turn^ 
did  not  repent,  did  not  believe,  all  imply  ability. 
That  such  implications  are  multiplied  throughout  the 
Bible,  will  not  be  denied:  that  they  do  strongly  imply 
capacity  of  right  or  of  wrong  choice,  and  are  based 
on  that  supposition,  is  equally  plain.  But  what 
would  be  thought  of  a  human  government  that 
should  address  such  language  to  stocks  and  stones, 
or  to  animals,  or  to  machines  moved  by  steam 
or  water  power?  And  why  should  they  be  ad- 
dressed to  man,  if  he  has  no  more  power  to  obey 
than  these? 

If  obedience  to  commands,  exhortations,  and  en- 
treaties, is  prevented  by  a  constitutional  necessity^  a 
natural  impossibility  of  choosing  right;  and  the  diso- 
bedient choice  is  also  the  unavoidable,  coerced  result 
of  a  constitutional  necessity,  over  which  the  will  has 
no  power,  but  of  which,  it  is  the  unavoidable  effect: 
then  choice  is  as  much  the  effect  of  a  natural  cause^ 
as  any  other  natural  effect;  and  directory  precepts, 
and  rewards  and  penalties,  and  exhortations  and 
entreaties  are  as  irrelevant  and  superfluous,  as  if  they 
were  addressed  to  our  appetites,  or  applied  to  secure 


84  NATURAL  ABILITY. 

Implication  the  most  uniform  mode  of  scriptural  teaching. 

the  beating  of  the  heart,  or  the  circulation  of  the 
blood. 

If  a  created  constitution  secures  the  volition,  what- 
ever it  may  be,  what  need  of  another  apparatus  to 
produce  it?  Is  not  one  cause  sufficient;  and  if  it 
were  not,  why  add  an  apparatus  which  is  totally 
irrelevant  and  powerless?  The  adoption  of  law  and 
motive,  then,  as  the  means  of  moral  government,  im- 
plies irresistibly  that  God's  unerring  wisdom  has  not 
entrusted  the  will  of  men,  like  instinctive  actions,  to 
the  guardianship  of  natm^al  causes^  and  has  committed 
it  to  the  guidance  and  guardianship  of  law,  and 
reward  and  punishment,  with  such  capacity  that 
choice  in  accordance  with  requirement  is  possible, 
and  reasonable;  and  contrary  choice,  possible  also, 
and  inexcusable,  and  justly  punishable.  On  this  ar- 
gument, we  observe: 

That  these  implications  of  the  Bible  do  clearly  and 
in  the  strongest  possible  manner,  treat  the  doctrine 
of  man's  free  agency  and  natural  ability  to  obey  or 
disobey  the  gospel,  as  the  foundation  of  his  obligation. 
Implication  is  the  most  uniform  and  established  mode 
of  scriptural  teaching  in  respect  to  natural,  mental, 
and  moral  philosophy.  It  teaches  almost  nothing  by 
formal  definitions,  and  regular  propositions,  and 
proofs;  but  assumes  and  takes  for  granted  whatever 
truths  of  this  kind  it  has  occasion  to  recognize.  But 
the  assumptions  of  an  inspired  unerring  book,  the 
assumptions  of  Him  who  created  and  organized  the 
world,  and  forms  and  governs  the  mind,  are  the  most 
powerful,  unequivocal,  infallible  mode  of  teaching. 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  85 

All  the  assumptions  of  the  Bible,  marked  with  uniform  exactness. 

In  demonstration,  men  may  err,  and  come  out  with 
false  conclusions;  but  God,  in  his  assumptions,  cannot 
err.  The  Bible,  therefore,  teaches  in  the  most  direct, 
and  forcible  manner,  the  free  agency  and  natural 
ability  of  men  as  qualified  subjects  of  moral  govern- 
ment. The  supposition  that  these  assumptions  of 
the  Bible  are  not  true,  and  that  man,  after  all,  is  not 
able  to  modify  and  diversify  his  choice  indefinitely, 
but  chooses  sin  or  holiness  by  a  coercive  necessity 
— that  he  cannot  but  sin  when  he  does  sin,  more  than 
rivers  of  muddy  water  can  purify  themselves,  and  stop 
flowing — and  cannot  turn  and  prefer  the  Creator  to 
the  creature,  more  than  the  prone  waters  can  roll 
back  their  tide  to  their  fountains;  destroys  the  credi- 
bility of  the  Bible  as  an  inspired  book. 

Hitherto,  all  the  assumptions  of  the  Bible  have 
been  marked  with  a  uniform  and  wonderful  exactness. 

Its  astronomical,  geographical,  historical,  chrono- 
logical, and  all  other  implications  are  always  verified 
in  the  results  of  the  strictest  examination. 

And  it  is  necessary  to  the  credibility  of  the  Bible 
that  it  should  be  so.  If  it  spoke  of  the  visible  heavens 
different  from  their  appearance  to  the  eye — and  if 
its  geography,  and  chronology,  and  natural  history, 
were  at  every  step  falsified  by  scientific  investiga- 
tions— if  the  lion  and  the  ostrich  and  the  war-horse  of 
the  Bible  were  verified  by  no  correspondences  in  na- 
ture, and  all  its  assumptions  of  countries,  and  scenery, 
and  natural  productions,  were  contradicted  by  the 
condition  of  the  countries  alluded  to,  it  would  disprove 
8* 


86  NATURAL  ABILITY. 


Philosophy  corroborates  the  verity  of  the  Bible  in  all  its  assumptions. 

the  credibility  of  the  Bible  as  an  inspired  book.  In- 
fidels aware  of  this  fact,  have  made  ceaseless  efforts 
to  catch  the  Bible  tripping  some  where  in  the  field 
of  natural  science,  and  have  exulted  exceedingly 
when  they  supposed  they  had  detected  a  few  mis- 
takes of  this  description.  But  no  sooner  did  the 
lamp  of  true  philosophy  follow  the  footsteps  of  their 
presumptuous  ignorance,  than  it  dissipated  their  pre- 
mature rejoicing,  by  discovering  the  exact  verity  of 
the  Bible  in  all  its  assumptions  of  the  attributes  and 
laws  of  nature. 

But  what  would  be  said,  if  in  tracing  the  implica- 
tions of  the  Bible,  in  respect  to  the  qualifications  of 
mind,  for  accountable  agency  and  government  by 
law,  we  should  find  them  all  contradicted?  While 
natural  philosophy  verified,  mental  and  moral  phi- 
losophy contradicted,  the  fundamental  principles  it 
takes  for  granted.  The  Bible  assuming  every  where 
that  man  is  free  to  choose  with  power  of  contrary 
choice ;  when,  in  fact,  as  the  truth  is  developed,  it  ap- 
pears that  he  is  no  more  able,  as  a  free  agent  to  choose 
at  all,  than  a  spark  is  to  strike  itself  out  without  the 
collision  of  flint  and  steel,  and  no  more  able  to  choose 
otherwise  than  he  does  choose,  than  water  is  to  be 
fire,  and  fire  water. 

Christianity  could  not  stand  before  such  contradic- 
tions of  revelation  by  science.  It  would  open  upon 
us  the  floodgates  of  an  all-pervading,  irresistible  infi- 
delity. Nay,  it  would  not  stop  at  infidelity — it  would 
undermine  all  confidence  in  consciousness  or  argu- 
ment, and  terminate  in  universal  scepticism. 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  87 

The  Bible  in  no  way  contradicts  its  own  implications. 

Our  argument  against  transubstantiation  is,  that 
our  senses  are  a  correct  revelation  of  the  reality 
and  attributes  of  external  things;  that  no  written 
revelation  from  heaven  can  contradict  the  testimony 
of  this  constitutional  revelation  by  the  senses  con- 
cerning attributes  of  external  objects,  without  sup- 
posing the  conflict  of  contrary  revelations,  which 
would  not  only  destroy  the  credibility  of  the  Bible, 
but  vacate  all  confidence  in  the  testimony  of  the 
senses. 

These  implications  are  corroborated  by  the  analogy 
of  cause  and  efiect  through  all  the  works  of  God — by 
the  common  sense  and  universal  consciousness  of 
men — by  all  the  results  of  mental  analysis,  uniting 
philosophers  in  the  definition  of  free  agency — and 
by  the  concession  of  individuals  and  the  public  sen- 
timent of  the  world,  as  disclosed  in  moral  govern- 
ment as  the  means  of  elevating  society.  But  if  these 
implications  of  the  Bible  of  a  free  agency  and  natural 
ability  to  obey  commensurate  with  law  thus  corrob- 
orated, are  not  true,  it  brings  on  the  Bible  over- 
whelming evidence  of  incorrect  teaching;  and  if  on 
this  tremendous  subject  all  its  implications  are  false, 
the  Bible  fails  to  sustain  its  claims,  and  the  whole 
system  of  revelation  and  its  doctrines  goes  out  in 
darkness. 

3.  The  Bible  does  in  no  way  contradict  its  own  im- 
plications, by  teaching  the  natural  ability  of  man  to 
render  to  God  a  holy  and  spiritual  obedience. 

It  applies  to  fallen  man.  in  respect  to  spiritual  obe- 
dience the  terms, '  cannot,  unable,'  &c.     This  is  not 


NATURAL  ABILITY. 


The  term  inability,  used  in  two  senses. 


denied — it  is  admitted — it  is  insisted  on.  But  the 
question  is,  what  does  the  term  inability  mean,  when 
applied  to  a  free  agent  and  a  totally  depraved  sin- 
ner— are  the  terms,  '  cannot,  unable,'  &c.  used  in 
common  language  of  men  and  in  the  Bible  only  in 
one  sense,  and  that  the  sense  of  a  natural  impossibil- 
ity? If  so,  the  question  is  settled,  and  we  are  at 
fault?  But  if  there  are  two  senses  in  which  these 
terms  are  used  in  common  and  in  scriptural  language, 
one  of  which  means  a  natural  impossibility,  and  the 
other  respects  an  event  possible,  in  respect  to  the 
capacity  of  the  agent,  but  prevented  by  a  perverse 
choice;  then  to  deny  this  distinction,  and  condense 
both,  by  an  arbitrary  assertion,  into  a  natural  im- 
possibility, is  to  beg  the  question  in  dispute — to 
do  violence  to  the  laws  of  exposition,  and  substi- 
tute assertion  for  argument.  Yet  this,  so  far  as  I 
am  apprised,  is  the  course  which  has  been  adop- 
ted to  disprove  the  natural  ability  of  man  to  obey. 
Those  passages  which  mean  aversion  and  obsti- 
nacy in  sin,  and  the  certainty  of  his  perdition,  with- 
out the  special  grace  of  God,  are  assumed  to  mean  a 
natural  impossibility.  The  terms  'cannot  and  un- 
able,' which  have  no  reference  to  his  capacity  as  a 
free  agent,  and  respect  only  and  wholly  his  charac- 
ter and  obstinacy  as  a  sinner,  are  quoted,  unexplained 
and  unproved,  in  respect  to  their  assumed  meaning; 
and,  merely  by  the  reiteration  of  unexplained  sound, 
the  doctrine  of  moral  inability  is  attempted  to  be 
battered  down,  and  that  of  a  natural  inability  to  be 
established.     But  who  does  not  see  that  I  have  an 


NATURAL  ABILITY. 


The  Bible  speaks  of  inability  as  the  aversion  of  the  will  to  God. 

equal  right  to.  assume  the  meaning  of  moral  inability 
as  the  only  meaning  of  the  term,  and,  by  the  power 
of  reiterated  assertion,  to  beat  down  my  adversary,  as 
he  has  to  battle  me  with  unexplained  words,  taken  for 
granted,  by  force  of  mere  assertion ;  and  that  both  of 
us,  in  doing  so,  would  violate  the  laws  of  philology 
and  correct  controversy?  As  soon  as  the  meaning 
of  the  texts,  applied  to  man  and  quoted  to  prove  his 
natural  inability,  are  explained,  it  appears  that  they 
respect  his  character  as  a  sinner,  and  not  his  consti- 
tution as  a  free  agent,  and  are  nothing  to  the  purpose 
to  prove  what  they  are  quoted  to  prove.  If  they 
mean  a  moral  inability,  the  mere  voluntary  aversion 
of  a  free  agent  to  obey  the  gospel,  then  they  do  not 
mean  or  teach  the  natural  impossibility  of  believing, 
and  the  moral  inability  of  the  sinner  may  be  per- 
fectly consistent  with  the  natural  ability  of  the  free 
agent. 

V/ith  this  lamp  in  our  hand,  all  becomes  clear. 
Whenever  the  Bible  speaks  of  inability  in  moral 
things,  it  speaks  of  the  sin  of  the  will,  its  aversation 
to  good.  Yet  vv^here  has  Dr.  Wilson,  in  the  whole 
course  of  his  argument  in  support  of  his  charges 
against  me,  ever  once  defined  the  term  'cannot?' 
where  has  he  recognized  this  obvious  distinction,  and 
the  manner  of  its  application?  He  has  insisted  on  a 
a  single  meaning  of  the  term,  which  meaning  he 
assumes,  and  then  denies  all  right  of  explanation.  As 
soon  as  the  word  is  explained,  he  is  gone.  These 
words,  like  all  other  words,  are  to  be  tried  by  the 
principles  of  exposition,  by  the  established  usus  lo- 


90  NATURAL  ABILITY. 

Words  used  with  different  significations — illustration. 

quendi,  and  not  by  their  sound  on  the  .tympanum  of 
the  ear;  or  else  Jesus  Christ  might  as  well  have 
spoken  Greek  to  men  who  understood  nothing  but 
English.  Take  an  illustration  on  this  subject:  Sup- 
pose an  assault  was  committed;  the  case  is  carried 
into  court,  where  the  assault  is  admitted,  and  the 
only  question  arising,  is  a  question  of  damages.  A 
witness  appears  and  is  asked.  Did  you  see  this 
assault?  Yes,  I  saw  A  strike  B.  How  hard  did  he 
strike  him?  I  don't  know;  I  canH  exactly  tell  how 
hard;  A  was  a  very  nervous  man.  'Oh!'  cries  the 
lawyer  in  favor  of  A, '  if  he  was  a  very  nervous  man, 
he  must  have  been  too  feeble  to  hurt  him  much.' 
Another  witness  is  introduced  and  asked.  How  hard 
did  A  strike  B?  I  can't  exactly  tell,  he  says. 
What  sort  of  a  man  was  A?  Oh!  he  was  a  very 
stout,  brawny  man;  a  very  nervous,  athletic  man. 
'Then,'  says  the  attorney  on  the  other  side,  'if  he 
was  a,  nervous  man,  no  doubt  he  must  have  hurt  my 
client  exceedingly,  and  he  is  entitled  to  heavy  dama- 
ges.' On  this  a  dispute  arises  as  to  the  testimony,  and 
it  turns  on  the  meaning  of  the  word  hiervous.''  One 
of  the  attorneys  brings  into  court  Webster's  Diction- 
ary, and  show^s  that  nervous  means,  of  weak  nerve, 
feeble:  and  there  he  stops.  Would  this  settle  the 
question?  Would  this  determine  the  meaning  of  the 
testimony?  Just  so  with  the  word  inability.  It  has 
two  meanings,  according  as  it  is  applied.  It  may 
either  mean  a  total  want  of  power,  or  a  total  want  of 
inclination. 

4.     The  subject^    and    the  circumstances   of  the 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  91 

Natural  impossibility  of  obedience  in  a  free  agent,  a  contradiction. 

case,  forbid  the  construction  of  a  natural  impos- 
sibility, as  relating  to  man  in  the  case  of  duty; 
because  the  subject  is  admitted  to  be  a  free  agent, 
and  free  agency  is  known  and  defined,  and  by  the 
Confession  itself  is  admitted  to  be,  the  capacity  of 
choice,  with  power  of  contrary  choice.  A  free 
agent  to  whom  spiritual  obedience  is  a  natural  im- 
possibility, is  a  contradiction.  By  the  laws  of  expo- 
sition, I  am  entitled  to  all  the  collateral  evidence 
which  can  be  thrown  upon  the  meaning  of  the 
Confession,  from  the  several  sources  of  expository 
knowledge  already  enumerated,  and  which  I  will  not 
here  recapitulate.  Dr.  Wilson  insists  that  man  is 
able  to  do  nothing — but  nothing  is  a  slender  founda- 
tion on  which  to  rest  the  justice  of  the  Eternal 
Throne,  in  condemning  men  to  everlasting  punish- 
ment, and  feeble  indeed  would  be  God's  gripe  upon 
the  conscience.  But  it  will  be  easy  to  show  that  the 
strongest  passages  relied  on  to  prove  natural  inabil- 
ity, are  forbidden  to  be  interpreted  in  that  sense,  by 
the  established  laws  of  exposition.  For  example,  it 
is  said,  John  vi.  44:  'No  man  can  come  unto  me, 
except  the  Father  which  hath  sent  me  draw  him.' 
The  nature  of  the  inability  here  declared,  is  indicated 
by  the  kind  of  drawing  which  is  to  overcome  it. 
This  is  taught  in  the  verse  immediately  following, 
and  elsew^here  in  the  Bible.  '  It  is  written  in  the 
prophets,  they  shall  be  taught  of  God:  every  man, 
therefore,  that  hath  read  and  hath  learned  of  the 
Father  cometh  unto  me.'  The  drawing  of  the  Father, 
then,  without  which  no  man  can  come,  according  to 


92  NATURAL  ABILITY. 


Impediment  to  obedience  overcome  by  moral  means,  not  by  force. 

prophetic  exposition,  quoted  and  sanctioned  by  our 
Redeemer,  is  in  being '  taught  of  God,'  in  reading  and 
learning  of  the  Father,  and  this  is  precisely  the  doc- 
trine of  our  Confession.  'God  maketh  the  reading, 
but  especially  the  preaching  of  his  word,  an  effec- 
tual means  of  convincing  and  converting  sinners.' 
'  I  drav^  them  by  the  cords  of  love  and  with  the 
bands  of  a  man.'  That  is  the  drawing:  with  the 
bands  of  a  man,  not  by  the  attraction  of  gravity. 
Suppose  the  planets  should  stop  in  their  course, 
would  God,  do  you  think,  attempt  to  overcome  the 
vis  interticB  of  matter  by  the  '  reading,  and  especially 
the  preaching  of  his  word?'  Would  he  send  the  ten 
commandments  to  start  them?  or  would  he  'draw 
them  with  cords  of  love  and  the  bands  of  a  man,'  to 
move  onward  in  their  orbits?  Yet  the  Confession, 
and  the  Catechism,  and  the  Bible,  all  as  certainly 
teach  that  the  impediment  to  be  overcome  is  over- 
come by  moral  means:  by  the  truth,  by  the  word  of 
God,  by  the  reading,  and  especially  the  preaching  of 
his  word,  made  effectual  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  can- 
not, therefore,  be  any  natural  inability;  any  such  ina- 
bility as  renders  believing  a  natural  impossibility, 
which  is  removed  in  regeneration.  But  it  is  said,  'the 
carnal  mind  is  enmity  against  God,'  and  that  this  is 
an  involuntary  condition  of  mind.  But  is  it  a  natural 
impossibility  for  any  enemy  to  be  reconciled  to  him? 
The  text  does  not  say  that  fallen  man  cannot-  be  re- 
conciled to  God;  but  it  says  that  the  carnal  mind  can- 
not be  subject  to  the  law:  'It  is  not  subject  to  the 
law  of  God,  neither  indeed  can  be.'     Carnality  can 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  93 

The  Bible  expressly  teaches  man's  ability  to  obey  the  gospel. 

never  be  so  modified  as  to  become  obedience.  Again, 
the  *  natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit 
of  God,  neither  can  he  know  them,  because  they  are 
spiritually  discerned.  Does  this  mean  that  an  un- 
converted man  can  have  no  just  intellectual  concep- 
tions of  the  gospel,  of  truth,  and  duty,  in  order  to 
his  obeying  it?  How  then  can  he  be  any  more  to 
blame  than  the  heathen,  who  have  never  heard  of 
Christ?  And  what  better  condition  are  men  in,  with 
the  Bible,  which  they  cannot  understand,  than  the 
heathen  are  with  no  Bible  at  all?  But  if  by  receiving 
and  knowing  be  meant,  a  willing  reception  and  an 
experimental  knowledge,  which  is  a  common  use  of 
the  terms,  then  the  text  teaches  simply,  that  until  the 
heart  is  changed,  there  can  be  no  experimental  reli- 
gion in  the  soul;  that  a  holy  heart  is  indispensable, 
not  to  intellectual  perception,  but  to  spiritual  dis- 
cernment, to  christian  experience. 

5.  The  Bible  not  only  does  not  teach  the  natural 
inability  of  man  to  obey  the  gospel,  but  it  teaches 
directly  the  contrary.  The  moral  law  itself  bounds 
the  requisition  of  love  by  the  strength  of  the  sub- 
ject. Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God — with 
what? — with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul, 
and  with  all  thy  mind; — and  with  what  else? — 
with  all  thy  strength.  But  if  heart,  and  soul,  and 
mind,  and  strength,  constitute  no  strength — how 
is  he  bound  by  such  a  command  as  this?  In  the 
same  manner,  constitutional  powers,  bearing  such  a 
relation  to  obedience  as  constitutes  obligation,  are 
recognized  in  the   Bible*     See  Isaiah  v.  1,  2,  3,4. 

9 


NATURAL  ABILITY. 


Parables  of  the  vineyard,  and  the  talents. 


Was  there  nothing  in  the  soil  and  culture  of  this  vine- 
yard which  rendered  fruit,  in  respect  to  the  soil,  a 
natural  possibility?  But  the  vineyard  was  the  house 
of  Israel,  the  owner  was  God,  and  the  fruit  demanded 
was  evangelical  obedience:  and  God,  the  owner,  de- 
cided that  what  he  had  done,  rendered  obedience  prac- 
ticable, and  punishment  just.  He  calls  upon  the 
common  sense  and  common  justice  of  the  universe 
to  judge  between  him  and  his  vineyard.  He  asks 
whether  he  had  not  done  that  for  his  vineyard  which 
laid  a  just  foundation  for  it  to  bring  forth  good,  in- 
stead of  wild  grapes,  and  declares  that  the  bringing 
forth  of  wild  grapes  was  a  thing  enormous;  and  goes 
on  to  pronounce  judgment  upon  his  vineyard. 

So  in  the  parable  of  the  talents.  The  ow^ner  com- 
mitted a  certain  portion  of  his  money  to  every  man 
according  to  his  several  ability.  These  servants  again, 
represent  the  Jewish  nation.  The  talents  represent 
go.-=pel  privileges;  the  improvement  to  be  made  be- 
lieving— and  the  misimprovement  sloth  and  unbe- 
lief. The  trust  was  graduated  in  proportion  to  the 
ability  of  each  man.  There  was  ability  therefore,  and 
the  servant  w4io  improved  his  trust,  received  a  reward. 
But  the  servant  who  made  excuses,  pleaded  his  nat- 
ural inability:  I  knew  that  thou  wert  a  hard  master, 
rei^ping  where  thou  hadst  not  sown,  and  gathering 
where  thou  hadst  not  strewed;  (worse  than  the  task- 
masters of  Egypt;)  and  I  w^as  afraid.  I  dared  not 
undertake  to  do  anything  with  my  talent.  I  thought 
th<J  safest  way  would  be  to  hide  it,  and  run  no  risk. 
But  his  Lord  said  to  him — Thou  wicked  and  slothful 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  95 

Ability,  the  ground  and  measure  of  obligation. 

servant,  thou  knewest  that  I  was  a  tyrant,  demanding 
the  improvement  of  gifts  not  bestowed.  How  coiildst 
thou  suppose,  then,  that  1  would  not  exact  the  im- 
provement of  what  was  given?  Why  didst  thou  not 
put  my  money  to  the  exchangers?  and  then  I  should 
have  received  my  own  with  usury.  Do  I  demand 
effects  without  causes?  Take  him  away,  thrust  him 
into  outer  darkness:  he  has  libelled  his  Maker,  he  has 
slandered  his  God. 

6.  The  broad  principle  is  laid  down  in  the  Bible, 
that  ability  is  the  ground  and  measure  of  obligation. 
According  to  that  which  a  man  hath,  and  not  accord- 
ing to  that  which  he  hath  not;  to  whom  much  is  given, 
of  him  shall  much  be  required;  but  to  whom  little  is 
given,  of  him  shall  little  be  required,  is  the  language 
of  the  equitable  Ruler  of  the  world.  But  if  ability  is 
not  needful  to  obligation,  why  observe  this  rule? 
why  not  reverse  it?  Why  not  require  little  of  him 
to  whom  much  is  given,  and  much  from  him  to  whom 
little  is  given?  Present  this  principle  to  any  man  but 
an  idiot,  and  see  what  he  will  say  to  such  a  proceed- 
ing. There  is  not  a  human  being  whose  sense  of 
justice  would  not  revolt  from  it.  And  shall  man  be 
more  just  than  God?  Nor  is  the  principle  of  gradua- 
ting responsibility  by  ability,  a  limited  rule  of  the 
divine  government,  applicable  only  in  particular 
cases;  the  rule  is  general;  it  is  universal;  it  applies  to 
every  free  agent  in  the  universe. 

7.  The  manner  in  which  all  excuses  are  treated  in 
Scripture,  which  are  founded  on  the  plea  of  inability, 
confirms  our  exposition.  There  were  impenitent  sin- 


NATURAL  ABILITY. 


The  Bible  treats  excuses  in  a  manner  which  confirms  the  doctrine. 

ners  of  old,  who  plead  a  natural  inability  of  obedience. 
In  the  time  of  the  prophet  Jeremiah,  there  were  those 
who  alledged  that  God's  decrees  created  the  unavoid- 
able necessity  of  sinning.  They  said  they  could  not 
help  it.  But  God,  by  his  prophet,  instead  of  conced- 
ing the  doctrine,  repelled  it  with  indignation. 

'Behold,  ye  trust  in  lying  words,  that  cannot  pro- 
fit. Will  yc  steal,  murder,  and  commit  adultery,  and 
swear  falsely,  and  burn  incense  unto  Baal,  and  walk 
after  other  gods  whom  ye  know  not;  And  come  and 
stand  before  me  in  this  house,  which  is  called  by  my 
name,  and  say.  We  are  delivered  to  do  all  these 
abominations?'   Jer,  vii.  8,  9,  10. 

Does  God  approve  of  men's  reasoning,  when  they 
say,  God  has  decreed  it,  and  God  executes  his  de- 
crees, and  a  resistless  fate  moves  us  on  to  evil.  Far 
from  it.  In  what  stronger  language  could  the  Lord 
speak  to  hardened  and  impudent  men,  who  laid  their 
sins  at  his  door?  Now  the  fall  itself  was  some 
how  comprehended  in  God's  decrees;  and  if  it  be 
true  that  the  fall  took  away  all  man's  natural  ability, 
wherein  were  those  Jews  wrong?  Their  excuse  was 
that  their  sins  were  produced  by  the  fatality  of  God's 
decrees.  They  were  delivered  to  do  all  these  abom- 
inations. Their  fathers  had  eaten  sour  grapes  and 
the  children's  teeth  were  set  on  edge.  By  the  sin  of 
Adam  they  had  lost  all  free  agency,  and  therefore 
they  were  not  to  blame;  all  was  just  as  God  would 
have  it;  an  inexorable  fate  drove  them  on,  and  how- 
could  they  resist  the  Almighty?  But  if  God  did 
indeed  require  spiritual  obedience  from  men  who  lay 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  97 

A  free  agent  able  to  choose  either  way,  life  or  death. 

in  a  state  of  natural  impotency,  how  is  it  that  he 
frowned  so  indignantly,  when  they  pleaded  their  im- 
potence in  bar  of  judgment? 

Again,  in  Ezekiel,  xxxiii.  10,  we  have  the  following 
language: 

'Therefore,  O  thou  son  of  man,  speak  unto  the 
house  of  Israel,  Thus  ye  speak,  saying.  If  our  trans- 
gressions and  our  sins  be  on  us,  and  we  pine  away  in 
them,  how  should  we  then  live?' 

Now,  suppose  they  had  been  born  blind,  and  God 
had  commanded  them  to  see,  and  they  had  replied, 
Our  blindness  and  darkness  sits  heavily  upon  us,  and 
we  pine  away  in  it,  and  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  see, 
how  then  can  we  escape  thy  displeasure?  Would 
God  in  such  a  case  have  answered: 

'I  have  no  pleasure  in  your  blindness,  which  it  is 
impossible  for  you  to  remove.  As  I  live,  saith  the 
Lord  God,  I  have  no  pleasure  in  your  blindness,  there- 
fore open  your  eyes  and  see  ye?' 

Does  God  call  men  to  turn,  vv^hen  a  natural  impos- 
sibility lies  in  the  way,  and  punish  them  forever,  for 
not  turning?  That  is  not  like  God.  Shall  not  the 
Judge  of  all  the  earth  do  right?  The  representations 
of  the  Bible  attach  obligation  and  accountability  to  a 
free  agent  as  being  able  to  choose  both  ways;  as  hav- 
ing ability  to  choose  life,  or  to  choose  death.  For 
what  is  written  in  Deut.  xxx.  11 — 20: 

'See,  I  have  set  before  thee  this  day  life  and  good, 

and  death  and  evil;  In  that  I  command  thee  this  day 

to  love  the  Lord  thy  God,  to  walk  in  his  ways,  and 

to  keep  his  commandments  and  his  statutes  and  his 

9* 


NATURAL  ABILITY. 


Natural  power  essential  to  obedience  as  well  as  disobedience. 

judgments,  that  thou  mayest  live  and  multiply.  I 
call  heaven  and  earth  to  record  this  day  against  you, 
that  I  have  set  before  you  life  and  death,  blessing  and 
cursing:  therefore  choose  life,  that  both  thou  and  thy 
seed  may  live:  That  thou  mayest  love  the  Lord  thy 
God,  and  that  thou  mayest  obey  his  voice,  and  that 
thou  mayest  cleave  unto  him. 

If  it  be  said  that  men  are  free  to  evil  and  accounta- 
ble for  doing  wrong,  I  answer,  if  God  commanded 
men  to  sin,  that  might  suffice;  but  if  he  commands 
them  to  stop  sinning,  and  they  have  no  free  agency 
to  do  it,  and  it  is  a  natural  impossibility  to  stop,  how 
does  free  agency  to  do  what  is  forbidden  create  ob- 
ligation to  abstain  and  do  what  is  commanded,  when 
they  have  no  power?  Besides,  could  they  not  sin 
without  ability  to  sin?  How  then  can  they  obey  with- 
out ability  to  obey?  And  if  they  have  free  agency  to 
obey,  that  is  just  what  I  am  contending  for.  For 
they  can  no  more  obey  without  natural  power,  than 
they  can  sin  without  natural  power.  If  man,  as  a 
free  agent,  has  not  natural  power  to  obey,  then  com- 
mands, and  exhortations,  and  entreaties,  and  expos- 
tulations might  as  well  be  addressed  to  men  without 
the  five  senses;  commanding  them  on  pain  of  eternal 
death  to  see,  hear,  feel,  taste,  and  smell.  This  argu- 
ment was  used  by  Pelagius  and  Arminius;  and  in 
the  forms  they  urged  it,  was  easily  answered;  they 
brought  it  forward  to  prove  not  only  that  man  is  nat- 
urally able  to  obey  God,  but  to  prove  that  he  actually 
does  obey  the  gospel  without  special  grace,  that  his 
will  is  under  no  bias  from  the  fall,  and  that  his  moral 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  99 

God,  not  the  author  of  sin. 

ability  is  so  unperverted,  that  it  is  sufficient  without 
regeneration,  to  do  all  that  God  has  commanded. 
Augustine  maintained  that  the  will  was  entirely 
struck  out  of  balance;  Pelagius  on  the  contrary 
maintained,  that  it  remained  in  delightful  equilibrio, 
and  consequently  that  no  grace  of  God  was  needed 
to  determine  it  to  a  right  choice,  insisting  that  de- 
pendence on  grace  to  change  the  will  was  inconsist- 
ent with  commands  and  exhortations,  &c.  But 
Augustine,  Luther,  Calvin,  and  all  the  reformers  fully 
admit  the  ability  of  man  as  a  free  agent,  and  deny 
that  his  moral  inability  and  dependency  as  a  sinner, 
supersede  obligation,  invitation,  and  command.  The 
natural  ability  of  man  is  a  point  which  has  never  been 
controverted  by  the  church  at  large,  and  generally  only 
by  heretics.  The  orthodox  portion  of  the  church  of 
God  never  has  questioned  it;  and  denied  only  moral 
ability,  i.  e.  a  right  disposition  or  will,  in  opposition 
to  the  Arminian  and  Pelagian  heresies. 

XV.  The  Scriptures  and  our  Confession  both  teach, 
that  God  is  not  the  author  of  sin — that  he  neither  cre- 
ates it,  nor  devises  plans,  nor  adapts  means,  to  break 
the  force  of  his  own  laws  and  administration,  so  as 
purposely  to  prevent  obedience  and  produce  sin,  as 
the  natural  and  necessary  result  of  his  own  power 
and  agency.  You  may  search  the  word  and  works 
of  God  with  a  microscope,  and  you  cannot  find  any 
such  thing  as  a  plan  tending  to  prevent  obedience 
and  to  produce  sin.  You  may  light  up  ten  thou- 
sand suns  and  search  every  cavern  and  deep  recess 
of  nature,  and  you  can   find  no   such   thing.     In 


100  NATURAL  ABILITY. 

The  whole  tendency  of  God's  government  is  to  prevent  sin. 

the  development  of  his  character,  law,  gospel,  and 
providence,  he  has  produced  powerful  means  of 
drawing  his  subjects  to  obedience,  unobstructed  by 
any  counteracting  influences  designed  to  prevent 
obedience  and  produce  sin.  He  has  given  no  law 
against  the  moral  law,  and  affords  no  motives  to  dis- 
obedience, and  administers  no  providence  to  defeat 
the  administration  which  corroborates  the  powers  of 
law.  All  the  tendencies  of  his  government,  law,  gos- 
pel, and  providential  administration,  are  self-consist- 
ent and  in  unison.  God  tempteth  not  any  man, 
neither  can  he  be  tempted  of  evil.  The  whole  ten- 
dency of  his  government  in  the  hands  of  the  Media- 
tor is,  to  lead  the  ruined  rebel  to  break  off  his  sins  by 
repentance,  and  not  to  induce  him  to  persist  in  them. 
God  is  not  the  author  of  sin.  It  comes  against  the 
whole  moral  influence  of  his  glorious  character,  law, 
gospel,  and  government.  Nor  in  its  existence  in 
fallen  man, '  is  violence  offered  to  the  will  of  the  crea- 
tures, nor  is  the  liberty  or  contingency  of  second 
causes  taken  away,  but  rather  established.' 

Of  course  I  reject  all  theories  of  the  origin  or  con- 
tinuance of  evil,  which  make  God  the  author  of  sin. — 
The  Gnostic  that  he  placed  man  in  contact  with 
sinful  matter,  to  be  unavoidably  corrupted — or  the 
Manichean,  that  it  is  a  part  of  the  created  substance 
of  the  soul — or  that  it  is  a  created  instinct  of  our  nature, 
perverting  the  Vv^ill  by  the  power  of  a  constitutional 
necessity — or  that  all  agency  in  creatures  is  impossible, 
and  therefore,  that  God  creates  sinful  and  holy  exer- 
cises, by  a  direct  efficiency  in  such  quantities  and  pro- 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  101 

Man  capable  of  choice,  with  power  of  contrary  election. 

portions  as  please  him.  1  hold,  with  the  Confession, 
the  doctrine  of  free  agency,  before  and  since  the  fall, 
sufficient,  while  upheld,  to  make  holiness  obligatory, 
and  account  for  sin  without  supposing  God  to  be  its 
author,  in  a  way  which  would  make  him  contradict 
himself,  and  oppose  his  own  laws  and  government, 
and  do  violence  to  the  will  of  the  creatures,  and  de- 
stroy the  liberty  of  choice,  determining  it  to  evil  by 
an  absolute  necessity  of  nature.  To  the  system  of 
free  agency,  then,  which  teaches  that  to  fallen  man 
'  no  ability  of  any  kind'  exists  to  obey  the  gospel,  or 
is  required  to  constitute  a  perfect  obligation  to  do  so, 
and  a  just  desert  of  eternal  punishment  for  not  obey- 
ing; I  oppose  the  testimony  of  the  whole  orthodox 
church,andthat  of  the  Bible. 

XVI.  Finally.  The  Confession  of  Faith  teaches 
plainly  and  unanswerably,  the  free  agency  and  natu- 
ral ability  of  man,  as  capable  of  choice,  with  the 
power  of  contrary  election. 

In  confirmation  of  this  position,  I  refer  to  the  Con- 
fession, chap.  ix.  sec.  1. 

'  God  hath  endued  the  will  of  man  with  that  natural 
liberty,  that  it  is  neither  forced,  nor  by  any  absolute 
necessity  of  nature,  determined,  to  good  or  evil.' 

Now  if  this  declaration  has  respect  to  man,  as  a 
race^  if  the  term  man,  as  here  employed,  is  generic, 
including  Adam  and  all  his  posterity,  then  the  pas- 
sage quoted  settles  the  question.  The  whole  turns 
on — what  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  man  ?  Because, 
if  it  means  man  as  fallen,  if  it  means  Adam's  poster- 
ity,   my   opponent  is  gone — the   ground  is    swept 


102  NATURAL  ABILITY. 

The  term  '  man'  used  in  a  generic  sense. 

from  under  him.  He  must  prove  that  man  means 
Adam,  and  Adam  only,  and  Adam  before  the  fall,  or 
else  the  Confession  is  against  him.  Now,  what  is 
the  subject  of  the  chapter  to  which  this  section 
belongs?  It  respects  free  will;  i.  e.  free  will  in  the 
theological  sense  of  that  phrase,  as  the  doctrine  was 
discussed  between  Augustine  and  Pelagius,  a  consid- 
erable time  since  the  fall,  and  has  respect  to  man  in 
the  generic  sense.  That  this  is  so,  is  plain,  from  the 
scriptural  references,  quoted  in  support  of  the  posi- 
tions taken.  If  the  declarations  of  the  chapter  had 
respect  solely  to  Adam,  the  scriptural  references 
would  be  to  Adam;  but  these  references,  do  not 
refer  to  him,  but  do  refer  to  his  fallen  posterity. 
They  drive  the  nail,  and  clinch  it.  See  what  they 
are: 

'But  every  man  is  tempted,  when  he  is  drawn 
away  of  his  own  lust,  and  enticed.'     James  i.  14. 

'  I  call  heaven  and  earth  to  record  this  day  against 
you,  that  I  have  set  before  you  life  and  death,  bles- 
sing and  cursing;  therefore  choose  life,  that  both  thou 
and  thy  seed  may  live.'     Deut.  xxx.  19. 

These  are  the  scriptural  proofs,  selected  and  ad- 
duced by  the  Assembly  of  Divines,  as  exhibiting  the 
scripture  authority  on  which  the  declarations  in  the 
chapter  are  made:  and  what  are  they?  Listen  to 
them: 

'God  hath  endued  the  will  of  man  with  that  natu- 
ral liberty,  that  it  is  neither  forced,  nor  by  any 
absolute  necessity  of  nature  determined,  to  good  or 
evil.'     Confess,  of  Faith,  ix.  1. 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  1(B 

Man  in  a  state  of  innocency  had  power  to  do  good  or  evil. 

If  this  means  Adam,  all  I  say  is,  that  they  use  very 
bad  grammar,  and  have  made  a  most  wonderful  mis- 
take in  the  references  quoted.  To  say  that  the  will 
of  Adam  before  the  fall,  is  neither  forced  nor  deter- 
mined by  necessity,  is  nonsense,  and  makes  the 
second  section  tautology. 

The  first,  if  it  refers  to  Adam  in  innocency,  says 
he  had  natural  liberty  of  will,  and  was  not  forced 
or  determined  by  necessity  to  choose  good  or  evil; 
and  the  second  section  repeats  the  same  thing;  that 
man  in  his  state  of  innocency  had  freedom  and  power 
to  do  good  or  evil. 

I  take  the  question  as  settled  then,  that  '  man'  here 
means  man  as  a  race,  and  that '  will'  here  means  the 
will  of  man  as  a  race;  and  it  is  what  I  hold,  and 
what  all  the  church  hold;  audit  is  the  fair  meaning  of 
the  Confession.  What  follows  in  the  next  section, 
with  respect  to  man  in  a  state  of  innocency,  is  a 
confirmation  and  an  illustration  of  the  doctrine  as 
thus  explained. 

'  Man,  in  his  state  of  innocency,  had  freedom  and 
power  to  will  and  to  do  that  which  is  good  and  well 
pleasing  to  God;  but  yet  mutably,  so  that  he  might 
fall  from  it;'  (Confess,  of  Faith,  ix.  2.)  i.  e.  his  free 
agency  included  the  natural  power  of  choosing  right 
or  of  choosing  wrong. 

Adam  had  the  natural  ability  to  stand,  and  he  had 
it  in  a  state  of  balanced  power,  in  which  he  was  ca- 
pable of  choosing,  and  liable  to  choose  either  way. 

Then  comes  section  the  third,  which  contains  a 
description   of  the   change  induced  by  the  fall,  a 


104  NATURAL  ABILITY. 

The  fall  changed  the  will,  not  the  constitutional  powers. 

change  which  respected  the  will  of  man,  not  his  con- 
stitutional powers;  a  change  in  the  voluntary  use  of 
his  will. 

'  Man,  by  his  fall  into  a  state  of  sin,  hath  wholly 
lost'— 

Lost!  what?  The  natural  liberty  of  his  will,  so 
that  it  is  now  forced  and  determined  by  an  abso- 
lute necessity  to  good  or  evil?  Not  a  word  of  it.  It 
was  not  that;  it  was  something  else  he  lost:  and 
thereupon  turns  the  question  between  us.  The  Con- 
fession says: 

'  Lost  all  ability  of  will  to  any  spiritual  good 
accompanying  salvation;  so,  as  a  natural  man,  being 
altogether  averse  from  that  good,  and  dead  in  sin,  is 
not  able,  by  his  own  strength,  to  convert  himself,  or 
to  prepare  himself  thereunto.' 

He  lost  '  all  ability  of  will.'  Does  this  mean  that, 
in  respect  to  the  power  of  choice,  his  will  fell  into  a 
state  of  natural  inability?  Not  at  all.  He  had  the 
power  of  choice  as  much  as  ever.  But  he  had  lost 
all  moral  ability,  that  is,  inclination  to  choose  what 
was  good.  His  will  was  altogether  averse  from  it. 
He  was  altogether  unwilling.  He  fell  into  an  ina- 
bility of  will,  i.  e.  into  a  state  of  obstinate  unwilling- 
ness. This  is  the  common  use  of  terms  until  this  day. 
Moral  inability  means  not  impossibility,  but  it  means 
unwillingness.  Man  became 'dead.'  But  how?  Not 
by  the  annihilation  of  his  natural  powers,  not  dead  in 
respect  to  the  natural  liberty  of  his  will,  but  dead  in  sin; 
so  as  not  to  be  able,  by  his  own  strength  (of  will)to  con- 
vert himself,  or  to  prepare  himself  thereunto.'     I  say 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  105 

The  words,  'able'  and  'strength,'  employed  in  a  moral  sense  only. 

'  Amen! — this  is  my  doctrine.  The  word  'able,'  and 
the  word  '  strength,'  are  both  employed  in  a  moral 
sense,  and  in  a  moral  sense  only;  and  thus  interpre- 
ted, the  Confession  is  perfectly  consistent  with  itself. 

The  fourth  section  of  this  chapter  is  a  corrobora- 
tion of  the  same  position: 

'  When  God  converts  the  sinner,  and  translates  him 
into  the  state  of  grace,  he  freeth  him  from  his  natu- 
ral bondage  under  sin,  and  by  his  grace  alone,  enables 
him  freely  to  will  and  to  do  that  which  is  spiritually 
good;  yet  so  as  that,  by  reason  of  his  remaining  cor- 
ruption, he  doth  not  perfectly  nor  only  will  that 
which  is  good,  but  doth  also  will  that  which  is  evil.' 

Frees  him  from   what?     From  his  free  agency? 
from  the   constitutional  powers  of  his  being?     No. 
Frees  him  from  his  bondage  under  sin,  i.  e.  from  his 
bias  to  evil,  from  his  moral  inability.     And  how  is  he 
freed?     The  Confession  says  it  is  by  grace.     Won- 
derful grace  it  would  be,  to  restore  his  natural  powers! 
One  would  think  this  was  more  like  justice  than  grace. 
But  it  is  argued,  that  if  this  bondage  means  mere 
obstinacy  of  will,  man  would  not  need  divine   aid. 
Indeed,  so  far  is  this  from  being  true,  that  no  crea- 
ture does  need  divine  aid  so  much  as  a  free  agent 
obstinately  bent  upon  evil.     My  children  were  free 
agents,  but  they  needed  aid,  to  secure  the  perform- 
ance of  such  duties  as  they  were  naturally  able,  but  as 
fallen  creatures  disinclined  to  perform.    None  possess 
such  a  power  of  resistance,  as  a  free  agent  under  moral 
inability  or  aversion  to  good.     It  is  a  bias  which  he 
himself  never  will  take  away.     God  must  deliver  him ; 
10 


106  NATURAL  ABILITY. 

Confession  of  Faith  on  the  decrees  of  God. 

and  every  thing  short  of  divine  aid,  is  short  of  his  ne- 
cessity.    Men  are  sometimes  fully  sensible  of  this.  I 
have  heard  of  a  man,  under  the  power  of  the  habit  of 
intemperance,   who    cried  out  to  his  friends,  Help 
me!  help  me!  wake  me  up!  save  me,  or  I  fall!     The 
love  of  liquor  had  not  destroyed  his  natural  ability. 
But  he  felt  that  his  moral  ability — his  ability  of  will 
to  resist  temptation — was  gone.     The  distinction  is 
pla^n  and  easy;  and  it  is  one  that  we  can  all  under- 
stand in  the  every  day  atiairs  of  life.     If  we   see 
our  friends  in  danger  of  being  overcome  by  evil  habit, 
we  brace  them  against  its  power;  we  perceive  their 
moral  inability,  and  we  bring  them  all  the  aid  in  our 
power.     The  phrase,  '  to  incline  and  enable,'  is  just 
as  consistent  with  a  moral  inability  as  it  is  with  a 
natural.     Our  natural  bondage  is  that  into  which  we 
are  born  by  nature.      Our  constitutional  bias  to  evil 
is   called  original  sin.     And  it  is  grace,  and  grace 
alone,  that  enables  a  man  to  resist  and  overcome  it. 
This  I  believe;  this  I  hold;  this  I  have  felt.     We  shall 
be  inclined  to  good  alone,  only  when  we  reach  the 
state  of  glory. 

This  reasoning  is  corroborated  by  the  doctrine  of 
the  Confession,  in  respect  to  God's  decrees. 

'God  from  all  eternity  did,  by  the  most  wise  and 
holy  counsel  of  his  own  will,  freely  and  unchange- 
ably ordain  whatsoever  comes  to  pass:  yet  so,  as 
thereby  neither  is  God  the  author  of  sin,  nor  is  vio- 
lence offered  to  the  will  of  the  creature,  nor  is  the 
liberty  or  contingency  of  second  causes  taken  away, 
but  rather  established.' 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  107 


No  violence  done  to  the  will  by  the  decrees  of  God. 


Here  are  two  points  of  doctrine  laid  down.  First, 
that  by  the  decrees  of  God  no  violence  is  done  to 
the  will  of  the  creature:  its  natural  liberty  is  not 
invaded  or  destroyed.  It  is  not  in  God's  decree  that 
it  should  be  forced  or  divested  of  its  natural  power, 
but  the  contrary. 

There  is  nothing  in  God's  whole  plan  that  amounts 
to  the  destruction  of  the  natural  liberty  of  the  will. 
Now  if  I  can  show  that  on  the  contrary,  his  decrees 
confirm  it,  why  then,  I  carry  my  exposition.  But 
what  says  the  chapter? 

'  God  from  all  eternity,  did  freely  and  unchangeably 
ordain  whatsoever  comes  to  pass.' 

That  God  did  ordain  the  fall,  and  all  its  connec- 
tions and  consequences,  cannot  then  be  denied.  But 
how  were  these  ordained?     The  Confession  tells  us 

how : 

It  was,  '  so  that  no  violence  is  offered  to  the  wnll 

of  the  creatures,  nor  is  the  liberty  or  contingency  of 
second  causes  taken  away,  but  rather  established.' 

Here  it  is  disclosed  that  the  natural  liberty  of  the 
will  is  not  destroyed  by  the  fall,  but  rather  established; 
instead  of  taking  away  free  agency,  and  the  capacity 
of  choice,  Grod  decreed  to  establish  it.  Whatever  has 
been  the  wreck  and  ruin  produced  by  the  fall,  the 
free  agency  originally  conferred  upon  man,  has  not 
been  knocked  away.  Therefore  it  was,  that  I  pressed 
this  book  to  my  heart,  because  it  assures  me,  that  the 
righteous  Governor  of  the  world,  has  done  no  vio- 
lence to  these  powers  and  faculties  of  man,  on  which 
his  government  rests. 


108  NATURAL  ABILITY. 

Decrees — Contingency — Dr.  Twiss. 

But  I  am  happy  on  this  subject,  in  being  able  to 
adduce  an  authority  altogether  above  my  own.  What 
did  the  Assembly  of  Divines  mean  by  this  word  con- 
tingency? The  celebrated  Dr.  Twiss,  who  was  their 
prolocutor  or  moderator,  must  be  high  authority  on 
that  question.     He  says: 

'  Whereas  w^e  see  some  things  come  to  pass  neces- 
sarily, some  contingently,  so  God  hath  ordained  that 
all  things  shall  come  to  pass:  but  necessary  things 
necessarily,  and  contingent  things  contingently,  that 
is,  avoidably  and  with  a  possibility  of  not  coming  to 
pass.  For  every  university  scholar  knows  this  to  be 
the  notion  of  contingency.' — Chr.  Spec.  vol.  vii.  No. 
l.p.  165. 

Dr.  Twiss  is  speaking  of  natural  and  moral  events, 
the  only  events  which  exist  in  the  universe;  and  he 
says  that  God  decreed  that  all  things  should  come  to 
pass;  that  natural  events  should  come  to  pass  neces- 
sarily; and  that  moral  events,  which  are  acts  of  will, 
and  which  he  calls  '  contingent  things,'  shall  come  to 
pass  contingently;  which  he  explains  to  mean  avoid- 
ably and  with  a  natural  possibihty  of  not  coming  to 
pass.  He  is  speaking  of  the  moral  w^orld,  and  he 
says  that  in  the  natural  w^orld  all  is  necessary  as 
opposed  to  choice;  but  that  in  the  moral  world  all  is 
free,  as  opposed  to  coercion,  or  natural  necessity,  or 
inability  of  choice;  and  that  every  act  of  will,  though 
certain  in  respect  to  the  decree,  is  yet  free  and  unco- 
erced in  respect  to  the  manner  of  its  coming  to  pass, 
and  as  to  any  natural  necessity,  always  avoidable — 
not  avoided,  but  according  to  the  very  nature  of  free 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  10& 


How  God  executes  his  decrees — Con.  of  Faith— Shorter  Catechism. 

agency,  always  avoidabls,  in  accordance  with  the 
language  of  the  Confession,  ch.  ix.  sec.  1.  [quoted 
above.] 

Now  we  shall  show  how  God  executes  his  decrees; 
and  what  says  the  Confession  on  this  point?  (See 
ch.  V.  sec.  2:) 

'Although,  in  relation  to  the  foreknowledge  and 
decree  of  God,  the  first  cause,  all  things  come  to  pass 
immutably  and  infalHbly;  yet,  by  the  same  provi- 
dence, he  ordereth  them  to  fall  out  according  to  the 
nature  of  second  causes,  either  necessarily,  freely,  or 
contingently:'  i.  e.  the  volitions  of  the  mind  come  to 
pass  freely,  and  as  opposed  to  any  natural  necessity, 
avoidably. 

The  account  given  of  the  actual  effects  of  the  fall, 
is  a  still  further  confirmation  of  our  exposition;  ch. 
vi.  sec.  2: 

'  By  this  sin,  they  fell  from  their  original  righteous- 
ness, and  communion  wath  God,  and  so  became  dead 
in  sin,  and  wholly  defiled  in  all  the  faculties  and 
parts  of  soul  and  body.' 

Also  Shorter  Catechism, Ques.  and  Ans.  17,  18: 

Q,.     Into  what  estate  did  the  fall  bring  mankind? 

A.  The  fall  brought  mankind  into  a  state  of  sin 
and  misery? 

Q.  Wherein  consists  the  sinfulness  of  that  estate 
whereinto  man  fell  ? 

A.     The  sinfulness  of  that  estate  whereinto  man 

fell,  consists  in  the  guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin,  the  want 

of  original  righteousness,  and  the  corruption  of  his 

whole  nature,  which  is  commonly  called  Original  Sin; 

10=^ 


no  NATURAL   ABILITY. 

Natural  powers  perverted  by  the  fall,  not  destroyed. 

together  with  all  actual  transgressions  which  proceed 
from  it. 

If  man  lost  the  natural  power  of  right  choice,  this 
answer  should  have  been  changed,  and  we  ought  to 
have  been  told,  that  the  fall  brought  mankind  into  a 
state  of  natural  impotency.  But  it  says  no  such 
thing.  It  says  it  brought  him  into  a  state  of  sin. 
What!  Can  a  man  sin  without  being  a  free  agent? 
The  eftects  here  stated  are,  the  loss  of  holiness  and 
the  corruption  of  his  nature.  But  surely  the  cor- 
ruption of  nature  is  not  the  annihilation  of  nature; 
his  nature  must  still  exist  in  order  to  be  corrupt. 
What  then  is  its  corruption?  It  is  deatin  sin,  not 
the  death  of  its  natural  powers.  There  is  no  de- 
struction of  the  agents.  But  there  is  a  perversion 
of  those  powers  which  do  constitute  their  agency. 
So  much  for  the  testimony  of  the  Confession  of 
Faith. 

I  said  that  in  expounding  a  written  instrument  we 
are  always  to  consider  the  attributes  of  the  subject 
concerning  which  it  speaks;  that  its  language  is  to  be 
expounded,  in  reference  to  the  nature  of  the  thing. 
The  Confession  teaches  that  man  was  endowed  with 
a  natural  liberty  of  choice,  and  has  suffered  no  per- 
version but  that  which  consists  in  a  wrong  exercise 
of  his  will.  Its  natural  liberty  remains,  but  in  regard 
to  moral  liberty,  i.  e.  an  unbiased  will,  the  balance  is 
struck  wrong. 

Such  are  my  views  of  the  natural  ability  of  fallen 
man,  and  my  evidence  that  they  are  just. 

It  is  the  ability  of  an  intelligent,  accountable  agent 


NATURAL  ABILITY.  Ill 

Fatality  the  only  alternative  of  natural  inability. 

for  the  exercise  of  his  own  powers  under  law,  and  in 
the  view  of  motives,  and  with  a  sense  of  obligation 
and  just  liability  to  reward  and  punishment.  Nothing 
short  of  this  distinguishes  man  from  animals,  or  dust  and 
ashes.  If  some  such  power  be  not  real,  no  difference 
can  be  pointed  out  between  free  agency  and  fatality, 
and  no  reason  assigned  why  God  should  govern  man 
by  moral  laws,  and  hold  him  accountable  rather  than 
any  other  of  the  products  of  his  power  and  natural 
government.     I  say,  therefore,  with  TertuUian — 

'A  law  would  not  have  been  imposed  on  a  person 
who  had  not  in  his  power  the  obedience  due  to  the  law; 
nor  again  loould  transgression  have  been  threatened 
with  deaths  if  the  contempt  also  of  the  law  were  not 
placed  to  the  account  of  man'' s  free  will. 

'He  who  should  be  found  to  be  good  or  bad  by 
necessity,  and  not  voluntarily,  could  not  with  justice 
receive  the  retribution  either  of  good  or  evil.'    p.  64. 


MORAL    INABILITY. 


I  NOW  proceed  to  explain  the  doctrine  of  Man's 
Moral  Inability,  as  understood  in  ev^ery  age  by  the 
orthodox  church,  and  as  taught  in  the  Confession  of 
Faith  and  the  Bible,  and  as  I  hold  and  teach  it. 

I  am  aware  that  the  doctrine  of  a  moral  inability, 
as  distinguished  from  natural  impossibility,  is  regarded 
by  some  as  a  fiction  of  the  imagination,  or  a  mere 
metaphysical  subtility,  of  no  practical  utility;  while 
all  its  tendencies  are  powerfully  to  the  territories  of 
dangerous  error.  But  when  the  nature  and  evidence 
of  moral  inability  shall  have  been  stated,  it  will  ap- 
pear, as  I  hope,  to  such  persons,  that  they  have  not,  as 
Edwards  says,  'well  considered  the  matter;'  and  that 
there  is  a  distinction  between  natural  impossibility 
and  a  moral  inability,  palpable  and  salutary,  without 
denying  the  dependence  of  man  for  eifectual  calling 
on  the  special  influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  or  imply- 
ing the  doctrine  of  self-regeneration  and  salvation 
without  an  atonement  by  the  deeds  of  the  law. 

By  natural  inability  I  understand,  that  which  an 
agent,  though  ever  so  willing,  cannot  do  from  defect 
of  capacity;  and  by  moral  inability,  that  which  his 
capacity  as  an  agent  renders  possible  and  )nakes 
obligatory,  and  which  is  prevented  only  by  his  own 


114  MORAL  INABILITY. 

The  bias  of  the  will  to  evil  never  overcome  by  natural  ability. 

uncoerced  choice,  including  in  the  term  not  only- 
single  consecutive  volition,  but  that  general  and 
abiding  decision  of  the  mind  for  God  or  against  him 
— which  constitutes  holy  or  unholy  character,  and 
includes,  what  Edwards  denominates,  Hhe  will  and 
affections  of  the  soul,'  and  Turretin,  'a  habit  of  cor- 
rupt will.' 

This  voluntary  hindrance  of  spiritual  obedience  is 
called  inability,  in  accordance,  as  I  shall  show,  with 
the  uniform  use  of  speech  in  all  the  languages  of  men, 
applying  the  terms  cannot,  unable,  &:c.  to  whatever 
is  prevented  by  the  slightest  disinclination,  up  to  the 
most  terrible  obstinacy  of  w^ill.  In  reference  to  spir- 
itual obedience,  it  is  called  inability,  also,  I  have  no 
doubt,  from  the  great  and  universal  difficulty  expe- 
perienced  by  man  in  changing  from  a  wrong  to  a 
right  decision  of  mind  in  respect  to  God  and  duty,  as 
well  as  from  the  absolute  certainty  that  without  the 
Holy  Ghost,  the  obstinacy  of  the  human  will,  will 
produce  its  deadly  results  with  a  certainty  equal  to 
the  connexion  between  natural  causes  and  tlieir  ef- 
fect, though  not  in  the  same  manner,  or  with  the 
same  results  as  to  accountability  and  desert  of  punish- 
ment. It  is  called  in  the  Creeds  of  the  Reformation, 
and  in  our  own  Confession,  inability  of  will — because 
spiritual  obedience  is  prevented  only  by  the  perverse 
action  of  the  will;  and  to  indicate  that  free  agency 
and  natural  ability  never  avail  in  fallen  man,  to  over- 
come the  bias  of  his  will  to  evil,  under  the  combined 
influence  of  original  and  actual  sin;  that  with  the 
ability  to  choose  right,  resulting  from  free  agency  and 


MORAL  INABILITY.  115 


Moral  inability  of  man  distinct  from  natural  ability. 


creating  obligation,  he  actually  chooses  wrong,  and 
only  wrong,  until  renewed  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

It  is  called  a  moral  inability  also  in  the  language  of 
Turretin. 

1.  'Objectively,  because  it  has  respect  to  moral 
duties.  2.  As  to  its  origin,  because  it  is  brought  on 
one's  self;  which  arises  from  voluntary  corruption, 
voluntarily  acquired  by  the  sin  of  man.     3.  As  to  its 

CHARACTER,  (fORMALITER,)  BECAUSE  THAT  IS  VOLUNTARY 
AND  CULPABLE  WHICH  IS  FOUNDED  IN  A  HABIT  OF  CORRUPT 
WILL.' 

By  all  this  I  understand  Turretin  to  mean,  that  the 
moral  inability  of  man  is  a  reality — is  distinct  from 
a  natural  impossibility,  and  is  called  moral,  because 
it  respects  the  aversion  of  mind  to  the  performance 
of  spiritual  duties,  brought  upon  the  race,  by  the  vol- 
untary transgression  of  Adam,  and  eventuating  in  a 
habit  of  corrupt  will.    To  all  of  which  I  subscribe. 

It  is  in  this  sense  that  the  term  moral  inability  is 
used  by  Edv/ards — 'We  are  said  to  be  naturally  una- 
ble to  do  a  thing  which  we  cannot  do  if  we  will,  be- 
cause what  is  commonly  called  nature,  does  not  allow 
of  it. 

'  Moral  inability  is  the  want  of  inclination,  or,  a 
contrary  inclination.' 

This  impotency  of  will  to  good,  according  to  the 
Bible  and  our  Confession,  and  the  received  doctrines 
of  the  church — includes  the  constitutional  bias  to 
actual  sin,  produced  in  all  men  by  the  fall,  anterior 
to  intelligent,  voluntary  action,  which,  though  it 
.destroys  not  that  natural  liberty  with  which^God 


116  MORAL  INABILITY. 

Native  bias  to  sin  never  changed  but  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 

hath  endowed  the  will,  nor  forces,  nor  determines 
it  by  any  necessity  of  nature  to  the  choice  of  evil 
instead  of  good — does,  nevertheless  evince,  that 
mankind  are,  as  Edwards  says — 'under  the  influ- 
ence of  a  prevailing,  effectual  tendency  to  that  sin 
and  wickedness,  which  imply  their  utter  and  eternal 
ruin.' 

To  this  bias  isadded  in  fallen  adult  man,  that  ter- 
riflic  decision  of  the  mind  in  favor  of  the  world  and 
against  God,  which  never  changes,  but  under  the 
special  influence  of  the  Spirit  in  our  effectual  calling. 

To  w^hich  may  be  added,  the  formidable,  accumu- 
lating influence  of  habit,  which,  though  it  forces  not 
the  will,  or  determines  its  perverse  obstinacy  by  any 
necessity  of  nature,  does  yet  in  accordance  with  the 
known  laws  of  perverted  mind,  powerfully  corrobo- 
rate the  perverting  influences  of  both  original  and 
actual  sin,  by  impairing  the  moral  sensibilities  of  the 
soul,  and  the  power  of  motive  to  good,  while  it  fear- 
fully augments  the  temptations  to  evil,  and  facilitates 
the  liability,  and  diminishes  the  resistance  to  a  com- 
pliance. 

This  is  the  view  of  the  subject  which  is  recognized 
in  our  Confession,  and  taught  in  the  Bible,  and  held 
forth  in  the  creeds  and  standard  orthodox  works  of 
every  age,  as  the  received  doctrine  of  the  church. 

In  my  preaching,  I  have  not  been  accustomed  to 
employ  the  terms  natural  and  moral  inability,  because 
they  are  the  technical  terms  of  theological  controver- 
sy, around  which  prejudice  has  gathered  odium  and 
mistake.     But  in  the  present  case  I  have  no  other 


MORAL  INABILITY.  117 

Love  of  sin,  no  evidence  of  its  natural  and  unavoidable  necessity. 

alternative,  because  it  is  on  these  technical  terms  that 
the  whole  controversy  turns. 

I  say,  then,  that  our  Confession,  while  it  teaches 
unanswerably  the  free  agency  and  natural  ability  of 
man  to  choose  right  as  well  as  wrong,  teaches  with 
equal  clearness  his  moral  inability  as  consisting  in  a 
settled  aversion  of  will  to  all  spiritual  obedience,  until 
called  efficaciously  by  the  word  and  Spirit  of  God. 

1.  There  is  no  necessity  for  interpreting  the  terms 
of  the  Confession,  as  applied  to  fallen  man,  to  mean 
the  natural  impossibility  of  obedience. 

The  various  phrases  expressing  inability,  are  bv 
common  use  in  all  languages  applied  to  express 
whatever  is  prevented  voluntarily,  either  by  slight 
disinclination,  or  the  most  powerful,  immutable  de- 
cision of  the  mind.  We  use  the  terms  cannot,  unable, 
&:c.  continually  to  express  whatever  for  the  slightest 
reasons  we  do  not  find  it  convenient  or  feel  inclined 
to  do,  and  where  no  natural  impossibility  exists  or  is 
thought  of.  As  there  is,  therefore,  no  necessity  to 
interpret  the  terms  inability,  and  unable,  as  applied 
to  fallen  man,  as  teaching  the  natural  impossibility  of 
obedience — so  also  from  the  established  use  of  the 
terms  in  all  languages,  there  is  no  authority  fordoing  it. 

The  decision  and  permanence  of  sinful  preference^, 
affords  no  evidence  of  its  natural  and  unavoidable 
necessity. 

Edwards  has  shown  that  certainty  and  uniformity 
of  right  or  wrong  action  does  not  decide  the  manner 
of  it  as  being  voluntary  or  coerced. 

He  shows,  in  accordance  with  our  Confession,  that 
11 


118  MORAL  INABILITY. 

Moral  impotency  not  inconsistent  with  other  doctrines  of  the  Bible. 

God  is  free  in  his  decrees  and  their  execution,  as 
opposed  to  the  coercion  of  fate ;  and  that  Christ,  though 
his  character  and  life  were  foretold  and  certain,  and  he 
went  as  it  was  written  of  him,  acted  nevertheless  with 
entire  and  uncoerced  voluntariness.  On  the  same  prin- 
ciple Nebuchadnezzar  and  Judas,  and  sinners  given  up 
of  God,  though  their  conduct  may  be  certain  as  a  mat- 
ter of  fact,  is  not  certain  by  a  coerced  necessity,  but 
in  the  highest  sense  free  and  accountable,  and  such 
throughout  are  the  implications  of  the  Confession  and 
the  Bible.  Because  the  moral  inability  of  man  there- 
fore, is  as  immutable  to  all  motive  and  human  effort, 
as  the  effects  of  natural  causes,  it  does  not  follow 
that  it  is  made  certain  and  immutable  by  a  natural 
necessity. 

The  doctrine  of  the  moral  impotency  of  man  is  not 
inconsistent  with  any  other  of  the  doctrines  of  the 
Bible. 

It  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  doctrine  of  our  entire 
and  absolute  dependence  for  regeneration  on  the 
special  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  for,  while  it 
includes  a  natural  ability  of  obedience,  as  the  ground 
of  obligation,  it  teaches  the  certainty  of  its  obstinate 
perversion,  creating  in  point  of  fact  a  necessity  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  to  renew,  as  real  and  as  great  as  if  the 
impediment  were  a  natural  impossibility.  It  no  more 
implies  self  regeneration,  than  if  the  work  of  the  Spirit 
in  subduing  the  will,  consisted  in  creating  new 
faculties;  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  to  make  man 
willing  being  just  as  indispensable  to  his  salvation,  as 
if  it  were  indispensable  to  make  him  naturally  able. 


MORAL  INABILITY.  119 

Difficulty  of  choosing  right,  arising  from  moral  impotency. 

Nor  does  that  ability  to  obey,  whose  exercise  is  pre- 
vented by  choice,  imply  that  it  is  an  easy  matter  for 
man  to  repent  and  turn  to  God,  in  and  of  himself; 
for  every  thing  which  is  possible  as  a  matter  of  duty 
is  not  therefore  easy.  I  agree  therefore  with  Turre- 
tin  '  that  man,  laboring  under  such  an  inability, 
is  falsely  said  to  be  able,  if  he  wishes,' — implying  that 
a  sinner's  wishes  may  change  a  heart  fully  set  on 
evil.  'For  though  the  phrase  may  to  some  extent 
be  tolerated,  understood  concerning  the  natural  pow- 
er of  willing,  which,  in  whatever  condition  we  may 
be,  is  never  taken  away  from  us;  yet  it  cannot  be 
admitted  when  we  speak  of  the  moral  disposition  of 
the  will  to  good,  not  only  to  willing  but  to  willing 
rightly.'  For,  though  in  respect  to  the  possibility 
and  corresponding  obligation  there  can  be  no  excuse; 
nevertheless  in  respect  to  the  difficulty,  nothing 
which  the  mind  can  lawfully  be  commanded  to  do, 
can  be  more  difficult.  It  is  difficult  to  resist  the  ori- 
ginal bias  of  the  mind  to  actual  sin;  difficult  to  relin- 
quish the  chief  good  located  on  earth,  and  set  our 
affections  on  things  above;  and  difficult  to  reverse 
the  long  accumulating  tendency  of  the  habitual  in- 
dulgence of  our  evil  way.  The  Bible,  therefore, 
represents  it  though  a  reasonable,  yet  a  difficult  thing 
for  a  lost  sinner  to  save  himself;  so  difficult  that  none 
do  it,  and  that  God,  in  doing  it,  makes  glorious  dis- 
plays both  of  power  and  grace;  and  every  sinner  and 
every  saint,  in  working  out  his  salvation,  finds  the 
scriptural  representation  true.  The  inattentive  find 
it  difficult  to  resolve  upon  immediate  attention;  and 


120  MORAL  INABILITY. 

The  Confession  teaches  an  inability  other  than  a  natural  one. 

difficult  to  fix  their  attention  when  they  have  done 
it.  The  stupid  find  it  difficult  to  awaken  themselves 
to  feel  and  realize  anything:  and  the  awakened  find  it 
difficult  to  see  and  feel  their  sins,  and  the  great  evil  of 
sin;  and  when  convinced  of  sin,  difficult  to  repent 
and  come  to  Christ.  And  when  the  sinner  is  con- 
verted, it  is  so  difficult  to  maintain  a  spiritual  frame 
and  holy  resolutions,  and  w^atchfulness,  and  prayer, 
and  perseverance,  that,  for  all  that  is  past,  and  all 
that  is  to  come,  he  says,  by  the  grace  of  God,  I  am 
what  I  am. 

The  terms  of  the  Confession  preclude  the  inter- 
pretation of  a  natural  impossibility,  as  their  only 
meaning,  and  cannot  be  so  interpreted,  without 
making  the  Confession  contradict  itself. 

According  to  a  well  established  rule  of  interpreta- 
tion, no  instrument  is  to  be  so  explained  as  to  make  it 
contradict  itself,  without  necessity,  and  when  it  is 
just  as  easy  to  harmonize  all  its  parts,  by  adopting 
a  different  interpretation.  Now  if  I  have  not  proved 
that  the  Confession,  as  I  interpret  it,  is  sustained 
by  other  collateral  arguments  in  addition  to  that 
w^hich  I  have  draw^n  from  the  Bible,  then  I  shall 
despair  of  ever  successfully  expounding  a  document 
in  the  w^orld.  I  never  have  seen  so  much  light 
thrown  on  any  one  point  of  exposition  before.  Does 
not  the  Confession  speak  of  inability  other  than  a 
natural  one?  Does  it  not  teach  expressly  '  the  natu- 
ral liberty  of  the  will'  in  fallen  man  to  choose  good 
or  evil,  uncoerced  by  fate  or  necessity?  And  after  all 
is  it  a  natural  liberty  that  means  nothing,  and  can  do 


MORAL  INABILITY.  121 

Original  corruption  implies  active  aversion,  not  fatal  necessity. 

nothing?  Does  '  inability  of  will'  mean  a  natural  im- 
possibility of  exercising  that  '  natural  liberty  of  the 
will'  in  the  choice  of  good ;  and  that  it  is  coerced  by 
a  natural  necessity  to  the  preference  of  evil?  Does 
the  Confession  contradict  itself?  We  are  not  at 
liberty,  then,  to  make  it  in  one  set  of  terms  deny  an 
ability,  which  it  has  asserted  in  another.  And  when  it 
declares  in  appropriate  phraseology  the  natural  liberty 
of  the  will,  it  cannot  mean  to  contradict  in  its  account 
of  moral  impotency  what  it  had  before  asserted  with 
respect  to  its  ability  to  choose,  as  opposed  to  fate. 
I  may  be  able  in  one  sense,  and  unable  in  another. 
The  Confession,  in  fact,  interprets  itself.  (And  this,  I 
suppose,  is  what  Dr.  Wilson  means,  when  he  says, 
we  must  receive  the  language  of  the  Confession  with- 
out any  explanation.)  I  agree  with  him,  that  on 
many  points  it  needs  no  explanation.  It  guards 
against  its  own  perversion,  and  its  language  is  such  as 
I  should  think  it  almost  impossible  to  misunderstand. 

Let  us  see  what  is  the  language  which  it  holds  in 
chap.  6,  sec.  4. 

'From  this  original  corruption,  whereby  we  are 
utterly  indisposed,  disabled,  and  made  opposite  to  all 
good,  and  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil,  do  proceed  all 
actual  transgressions.' 

Here  is  active  aversion,  not  fatal  necessity.  The 
man  is  indisposed,  he  is  disabled  by  being  indisposed. 
But  it  has  been  said,  that  if  a  man  needs  help,  it  must 
be  a  natural  inability  under  which  he  lies.  This  I 
deny.  A  man  who  lies  under  a  moral  inability  needs 
aid  as  really  as  if  were  naturally  unable;  and  the  aid  he 
11* 


122  MORAL  INABILITY. 

Loss  of  liberty  of  will  does  not  mean  loss  of  free  agency. 

needs  is  such  as  God  alone  can  bring  him.  What 
Christian  does  not  pray  that  God  would  help  him? 
But  does  he  mean  that  he  has  no  strength  of  any 
sort?  Not  at  all.  He  is  afraid  to  trust  his  own  heart. 
He  prays  for  moral  aid,  for  moral  ability,  for  strength 
of  purpose.  Surely  we  are  all  agreed  in  this.  We 
believe  alike — for  we  pray  alike.  New  School  and  Old 
School  all  confess,  when  they  get  before  God,  their 
impotency  of  will  to  good,  and  pray  for  help  to  will  and 
to  do.  I  have  put  off  my  coat,  how  shall  I  put  it  on? 
We  feel  this  impotency;  and  what  we  feel,  God  sees; 
and  that  which  he  sees  he  has  testified. 
Chapter  ix.  on  Free  Will. 

'Man,  by  his  fall  into  a  state  of  sin,  hath  wholly 
lost  all  ability  of  will  to  any  spiritual  good  accompa- 
nying salvation;  so  as  a  natural  man,  being  altogether 
averse  from  that  good,  and  dead  in  sin,  is  not  able, 
by  his  own  strength,  to  convert  himself,  or  to  pre- 
pare himself  thereunto.' 

When  it  says  that  man  has  lost  all  ability  of  will, 
it  does  not  mean  that  he  has  lost  all  free  agency.  It 
does  not  mean,  that  he  is  not  able,  as  a  free  agent, 
and  bound  to  do  that  which  is  right,  but  that  he  has 
lost  all  will  to  do  it.  My  soul!  do  I  not  believe  this? 
Did  I  not  feel  it  when  God  convinced  me  of  sin?  Full 
well  did  I  feel  it.  Did  I  not  fall  at  the  footstool  and 
tell  the  Lord  that  I  was  gone,  that  I  was  ruined  and 
helpless,  and  never  should  come  back  to  him,  unless 
he  put  forth  his  hand  to  deliver  me?  If  I  ever  preached 
any  truth  to  dying  men,  with  all  my  heart  and  with 
all  my  soul,  it  is  the  truth  of  man's  total  depravity 


,    MORAL  INABILITY.  123 

Man  remains  utterly  averse  to  all  good  until  God  quickens  him. 

and  inability;  that  his  condition  is  desperate,  and 
never  will  he  turn  and  live,  unless  God  shall  look 
down  from  heaven  and  have  mercy  upon  him.  This 
is  my  doctrine;  and  it  it  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Con- 
fession, which  says,  we  are  averse  from  all  good. 
This  language  suits  me.  There  is  no  catch  in  this, 
no  quibble;  I  mean  what  I  say;  I  fully  and  heartily 
believe  that  man  is  utterly  averse  to  all  good;  that 
he  is  dead;  dead  in  law  and  dead  in  sin — under  the 
curse  of  God,  and  so  will  ever  remain,  until  God 
quickens  him  by  his  Spirit  and  grace. 

But  let  us  see  what  the  Confession  says  in  sec.  4, 
chap.  9. 

'When  God  converts  a  sinner,  and  translates  him 
into  the  state  of  grace,  he  freeth  him  from  his  natural 
bondage  under  sin,  and  by  his  grace  alone  enables 
him  freely  to  will  and  to  do  that  which  is  spiritually 
good;  yet  so  as  that,  by  reason  of  his  remaining  cor- 
ruption, he  doth  not  perfectly  nor  only  will  that 
which  is  good,  but  doth  also  will  that  which  is  evil.' 

'Enable'  here  does  not  imply  that  there  is  any 
natural  inability.  It  means,  inclines  him  to  will. 
The  Confession  is  orthodox;  it  says  that  no  mere 
man  is  able,  without  divine  aid,  to  keep  God's  com- 
mandments. That  is  my  faith.  I  admit,  however, 
that  this  was  the  spot  at  Vvhich  I  once  stumbled, 
when,  as  I  said,  I  was  unable  fully  to  embrace  the 
Confession  of  Faith.  I  saw  a  difficulty  here.  I  be- 
lieved the  Confession  to  mean  just  as  Dr.  Wilson 
now  insists  that  it  does  mean;  and  in  that  sense  I 
never  could  receive  it.     But  on  reflection,  and  with 


liW  MORAL  INABILITY. 

Effectual  calling — divine  illumination. 

those  collateral  lights  which  I  have  mentioned,  I 
now  understand  it  to  speak  the  very  truth,  and  I 
embrace  it  accordingly.  I  believe  in  the  moral  ina- 
bility which  it  here  declares;  and  I  believe  that 
moral  inability  to  obey  the  law  perfectly,  will  con- 
tinue until  the  christian  reaches  his  home  in  heaven. 

But  now  let  us  hear  what  the  Confession  says  upon 
effectual  calling.     I  quote  from  chap.  x.  sec.  1. 

'All  those  whom  God  hath  predestinated  unto  life, 
and  those  only,  he  is  pleased,  in  his  appointed  and 
accepted  time,  effectually  to  call  by  his  word  and 
Spirit,  out  of  that  state  of  sin  and  death  in  which 
they  are  by  nature,  to  grace  and  salvation  by  Jesus 
Christ;  enlightening  their  minds  spiritually  and  sav- 
ingly to  understand  the  things  of  God;  taking  away 
their  heart  of  stone,  and  giving  unto  them  an  heart  of 
flesh;  renewing  their  wills,  and  by  his  almighty  power 
determining  them  to  that  which  is  good;  and  effectu- 
ally drawing  them  to  Jesus  Christ:  yet  so  as  they 
come  most  freely,  being  made  willing  by  his  grace.' 

This  enlightening  I  hold  to  be  a  divine  illumination, 
and  such  as  the  Spirit  of  God  alone  can  give.  The 
phrase  'heart  of  stone,'  which  is  employed  in  one  of 
the  texts  cited  as  proof,  is  a  metaphor;  and  so  is  the 
'heart  of  flesh;'  and  this  I  believe  is  the  only  passage 
in  the  whole  Bible  where  the  term  'flesh'  is  employed 
to  signify  anything  good.  A  heart  of  flesh  manifestly 
means  tenderness,  susceptibility — in  other  words,  a 
willing  heart.  Renewing  the  '  will,'  that  is,  turning 
the  will  into  a  new  direction.  It  is  God  who  turns  it. 
The  sinner  left  to  himself  never  will  turn.     But  in 


MORAL  INABILITY.  125 


Regeneration  the  most  stupendous  work  of  Almighty  power. 

conversion  God  does  not  make  a  free  agent.  He  turns 
a  free  agent.  I  am  perfectly  aware  that  some  very 
good  men  suppose  and  assert,  that  the  men  of  the 
new  school  (though  that,  by  the  by,  is  one  of  the 
most  undefined  of  all  designations;  the  term  is  like 
fog,  it  has  no  substance  and  no  definite  limits,  but 
floats  about  in  a  sort  of  palpable  obscure)  hold  to  self- 
regeneration;  and  that  the  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  not  necessary  in  turning  a  sinner  from  dark- 
ness to  light.  No  man  ever  heard  me  teach  such  a 
doctrine.  I  have  taught  directly  the  reverse,  and 
have  put  the  doctrine  of  man's  absolute  dependence 
into  as  strong  terms  as  I  knew  how  to  employ.  If 
there  are  any  stronger,  I  shall  be  glad  to  get  hold  of 
them.  All  who  are  in  the  habit  of  hearing  me,  know 
perfectly  that  the  total  depravity  of  man  and  his  de- 
pendence on  the  power  and  help  of  the  Spirit  of  God 
has  been  the  great  end  of  all  my  preaching ;  and  as  I  well 
know  has  been,  under  God,  the  power  of  my  preaching. 
I  think,  and  always  have  thought,  that  the  display  of 
divine  Omnipotence  in  converting  rebel  minds  is 
greater  by  far  than  any  exhibition  of  it,  which  ever 
has  been  made  in  the  material  world.  And  for  an 
obvious  reason;  because  mind  has  more  power  of  re- 
sistance than  matter.  Some  men  seem  to  think,  that 
if  God  does  a  thing  by  instrumentality,  no  opportuni- 
ty is  left  for  God  to  show  his  own  great  power.  I 
think  far  otherwise.  To  me  the  truth  seems  weak 
enough  in  itself  to  leave  ample  space  for  the  display 
of  Omnipotence  in  making  it  eflectual.  I  think  that 
the  act  of  God  in  regeneration,  is  the  most  stupendous 


126  MORAL  INABILITY. 

Moral  inability  taught  by  the  fathers — Clement— Origen. 

manifestation  of  omnipotent  energy  that  has  ever  been 
made  by  the  Almighty.  Nor  do  I  ever  expect  to  see 
anything  in  God's  works  that  will  rival  the  solemn 
majesty  of  that  greatest  of  all  his  operations,  which, 
silent  as  the  spheres,moves  on  in  its  resistless  strength, 
making  the  hearts  of  rebels  yield  before  it. 

The  next  point  in  the  confirmation  of  my  exposi- 
tion of  the  doctrine  of  the  Confession,  touching  the 
moral  impotency  of  man,  is  to  show,  that  what  it  af- 
firms on  that  subject,  has  been  the  doctrine  of  the 
church  of  God  in  all  ages.  And  I  shall  now  attempt 
to  show  that  the  fathers,  while  they  held  free  will,  in 
opposition  to  necessity  and  blind  fate,  nevertheless 
taught  the  moral  inability  of  man,  and  his  dependence 
on  the  Holy  Spirit,  just  as  I  teach  it.  The  first  au- 
thority I  shall  produce  on  this  point  is  that  of  Clement 
of  Alexandria. 

'Since  some  men  are  without  faith  and  others  con- 
tentious, all  do  not  obtain  the  perfection  of  good. 
Nor  is  it  possible  to  obtain  it  without  our  own  exer- 
tion. The  whole,  however,  does  not  depend  upon 
our  own  will;  for  instance — our  future  destiny;  for 
we  are  saved  by  grace,  not  indeed  without  good 
works.' — ScoWs  Tomline,  vol.  2,  p.  56. 

Clement  teaches  in  this  passage  man's  natural 
ability  and  his  moral  inability  with  equal  clearness. 

Origen. — '  The  virtue  of  a  rational  creature  ,  is 
mixed,  arising  from  his  own  free  will,  and  the  divine 
power  conspiring  with  him  who  chooses  that  which 
is  good.  But  there  is  need  of  our  own  free  will,  and 
of  divine  cooperation  which  does  not  depend  upon 


MORAL  INABILITY.  127 

Moral  inability — Gregory  Nazianzen — Jerome. 

our  will,  not  only  to  become  good  and  virtuous,  but 
also  after  we  become  so,  that  we  may  persevere  in 
virtue.'  p.  82. 

I  quoted  him  before,  and  showed  that  he  was 
strong  on  the  doctrine  of  free  will,  as  opposed  to  fate. 
What  I  have  now  quoted  may  be  considered  as  a 
good  commentary  upon  the  text: — It  is  God  that 
worketh  in  you  both  to  will  and  to  do  of  his  good 
pleasure. 

Gregory  Nazianzen. — 'A  right  will  stands  in  need 
of  assistance  from  God;  or  rather  the  very  desire  of 
what  is  right  is  something  divine,  and  the  gift  of  the 
mercy  of  God.  For  we  have  need  both  of  power 
over  ourselves  and  of  salvation  from  God,  Therefore, 
says  he,  it  is  not  of  him  that  willeth,  that  is,  not  of 
him  only  that  willeth,  nor  of  him  only  that  runneth, 
but  of  God  that  showeth.  Since  the  will  itself  is 
from  God,  he  with  reason  attributes  every  thing  to 
God.  However  much  you  run,  however  much  you 
contend,  you  stand  in  need  of  him  who  gives  the 
crown.' 

Gregory  says  that  God  is  the  author  of  faith — that 
he  is  the  beginning  of  good  in  the  soul;  yet  he  is 
equally  explicit  on  the  doctrine  of  free  will  as  oppos- 
ed to  fatalism.  He  holds  that  man  has  need  of  all 
that  free  agency  can  do,  and  all  that  grace  performs 
beside. 

Jerome. — 'For  the  freedom  of  the  will  is  so  to  be 
reserved,  that  the  grace  of  the  Giver  may  excel  in  all 
things,  according  to  the  saying  of  the  prophet,  except 
the  Lord  build  the  house,  their  labor  is  but  lost  that 


128  MORAL  INABILITY. 

Moral  inability — Theodoret. 

build  it.  Except  the  Lord  keep  the  city,  the  watchman 
waketh  but  in  vain.  It  is  not  of  him  that  willeth, 
nor  of  him  that  runneth,  but  of  God  that  showeth 
mercy.'  p.  146. 

He  declares,  then,  that  though  man  is  a  free  agent, 
yet  regeneration  is  not  the  effect  of  his  agency,  but 
of  God's  free  grace:  as  the  preservation  of  a  city  is 
not  the  result  of  the  v^atchman's  care,  but  of  God's 
unsleeping  providence.  Unless  the  Lord  keep  the 
city,  the  watchman  waketh  but  in  vain. 

Theodoret. — '  Neither  the  grace  of  the  Spirit  is  suf- 
ficient for  those  who  have  unwillingness;  nor,  on  the 
other  hand,  can  willingness,  without  this  grace,  col- 
lect the  riches  of  virtue.'     p.  290. 

Here  we  see  that  while  the  grace  of  the  Spirit  does 
not  supersede  the  necessity  of  earnest  attention  and 
striving  on  the  part  of  man,  yet  that  no  strivings  of 
man  will  ever  issue  in  a  saving  result,  without 
Almighty  grace.  And  grace  is  not  to  be  expected 
while  a  man  wilfully  indulges  in  sloth  and  sleep,  and 
puts  forth  no  effort  for  his  own  deliverance. 

But,  before  adducing  quotations  further,  I  would 
remark : 

1.  That  every  one  of  these  confessions  recognizes 
the  liberty  of  the  will,  as  free  from  coercion. 

2.  They  all  uniformly  ascribe  its  perverse  action 
to  the  effect  of  the  fall,  in  biasing,  yet  not  in  coercing 
the  will. 

3.  They  all  teach  expressly  that  the  bondage  is 
the  influence  of  this  evil  bias,  and  not  a  natural 
necessity  of  sinning;  and  taken  together,  they  make 


MORAL  INABILITY.  129 

Harmony  of  the  Protestant  Confessions.  Early  reformers. 

out  a  clear  and  consistent  account  of  the  natural 
ability  of  man,  as  a  free  agent  and  of  his  moral 
inability  as  a  sinner,  by  reason  of  the  bias  of  his  will, 
as  occasioned  by  the  fall.  If  you  shut  your  eyes 
and  try  their  meaning  only  by  your  ear,  you  will 
hear  it  abundantly  asserted,  that  man  hath  no  liberty 
at  all  to  desire  good,  and  can  of  himself  do  nothing; 
but  if  you  compare  their  own  language  with  itself, 
you  will  perceive  that  they  insist  on  the  natural 
liberty  of  the  will,  which  means  natural  ability,  and 
teach  only  the  impotence  which  results  from  the  will 
itself,  as  biased  and  perverted  by  the  fall,  and  that  the 
distinction  of  man's  natural  ability  as  a  free  agent, 
and  his  impotency  through  the  perversity  of  his  will, 
runs  through  all  the  creeds,  and  is  as  plainly  recog- 
nized in  them  as  it  is  in  our  own  Confession.  It  is 
this  habit  of  interpreting  by  sound,  which  demands  a 
running  exposition,  or  1  should  need  to  say  nothing 
in  exposition  of  the  quotations  from  the  former  of  the 
creeds. 

HARMONY    OF    THE    PROTESTANT    CONFESSIONS. 

The  doctrines  of  the  early  reformers  in  Europe 
were  misunderstood  by  the  Catholics,  against  whom 
they  contended,  who  maintained  that  they  were  all  a 
set  of  schismatics;  that  they  were  perpetually  jang- 
ling among  each  other,  so  that  no  two  of  them  could 
agree;  and  on  this  alledged  fact,  they  strengthened 
the  great  argument  of  their  church  as  to  the  necessity 
of  having  some  head  on  earth  to  the  visible  church, 
whose  decisions  might  settle  controversies  and  give 
12 


130  MORAL  INABILITY. 

Confession  of  Helvetia.  Man's  inability,  moral  and  voluntary. 

uniformity  to  the  faith.  To  meet  this  argument  and 
repel  it,  the  reformers  got  up  this  book,  which  is 
entitled,  The  harmony  of  the  Confessions:  the  design 
of  which  was  to  show,  by  collating  the  Confessions 
of  different  evangelical  churches,  that  the  representa- 
tion of  their  enemies  was  false;  and  that,  in  all  funda- 
mental points  of  faith,  they  were  fully  agreed. 

From  this  book,  I  am  about  to  show  what  the  Pro- 
testant churches,  just  come  out  of  the  fiery  furnace  of 
Papal  persecution,  held  on  the  subject  of  the  moral 
inability  of  man.  I  have  already  shown  what  was 
the  opinion  of  the  fathers.  I  shall  now  show  that  of 
the  reformers.  And  I  begin  with  the  Confession  of 
Helvetia. 

Confession  of  Helvetia. — '  And  we  take  sin  to  be 
that  natural  corruption  of  man,  derived  or  spread 
from  those  our  first  parents  unto  us  all,  through 
which  we  being  drowned  hi  evil  concupiscences^  and 
clean  turned  away  from  God,  but  prone  to  all  evil,  full 
of  all  wickedness,  distrust,  contempt,  and  hatred  of 
God,  can  do  no  good  to  ourselves,  no  not  so  much  as 
think  of  any.'     p.  58. 

Here  we  see  that  man's  inability  does  not  consist 
in  any  want  of  understanding  or  conscience,  or  any 
other  attribute  or  power  of  a  free  agent;  but  that  it 
is  the  effect  of  that  which  is  moral  and  voluntary;  that 
it  arises  from  the  evil  concupiscence  of  a  corrupt 
nature,  the  willful  unbelief  of  a  wicked  heart.  Men 
cannot  do  what  is  good.  Why?  Because  they  have 
a  moral  inability  to  do  it.  Who  can  bring  a  clean 
thing  out  of  an  unclean  ?    Again : 


MORAL  INABILITY.  iSl 

Free  agency  does  not  prevent  sin,  nor  ensure  obedience. 

'  We  are  to  consider,  what  man  was  after  his  fall. 
His  understanding  indeed  was  not  taken  from  him, 
neither  was  he  deprived  of  will,  and  altogether 
changed  into  a  stone  or  stock.  Nevertheless,  these 
things  are  so  altered  in  man,  that  they  are  not  able 
to  do  now,  that  which  they  could  not  do  before  his 
fall.  For  his  understanding  is  darkened,  and  his  wili^ 
which  before  was/ree,  is  now  become  a  servile  will: 
for  it  serveth  sin,  not  nilling^  but  luilling:  for  it  is 
called  a  will  and  not  a  nilling.  Therefore,  as  touch- 
ing evil  or  sin,  man  does  evil,  not  compelled  either  by 
God  or  the  Devil,  but  of  his  own  accord;  and  in  this 
respect  he  hath  a  most  free  will.'     p.  60. 

The  fall  is  here  said  not  to  have  deprived  man  of 
free  agency;  not  to  have  turned  him  into  a  stock  or 
a  stone;  but  that  his  free  agency,  as  it  did  not  suffice 
to  keep  him  from  sinning,  does  not  suffice  to  raise 
him  frorn  the  ruins  of  the  fall.  Again,  let  us  listen  to 
the  same  Confession. 

'The  regenerate,  in  the  choice  and  working  of 
that  which  is  good,  do  not  only  work  passively,  but 
actively.  For  they  are  moved  of  God,  that  theni- 
selves  may  do  that  which  they  do.  And  Augustine 
doth  truly  alledge  that  saying,  that  God  is  said  to  be 
our  helper.  For  no  man  can  be  helped^  but  he,  that 
doth  somewhat.  The  Manichees  did  bereave  man  of 
all  action,  and  made  him  like  a  stone  and  a  block, 
p.  62. 

Here  we  find  that  no  man  is  helped  by  grace  as  a 
mere  passive  impotent  machine;  that  he  acts  in  work- 
ing out  his  salvation;  and  that  God  helps  him  as  a 


132  MORAL  INABILITY. 

French  Confession.  Confession  of  Belgia- 

free  agent,  and  not  as  a  mass  of  lead.  A  piece  of  lead 
cannot  be  helped  to  rise.  It  may  be  lifted.  But  it 
cannot  be  helped.  And  for  the  simple  reason,  that 
it  hath  no  agency  of  its  own  to  be  helped. 

The  French  Confession. — 'Also,  though  he  be  en- 
dued with  will,  whereby  he  is  moved  to  this  or  that, 
yet  insomuch  as  that  is  altogether  captivated  under  sin, 
it  hath  no  liberty  at  all  to  desire  good,  as  of  itself,  but 
such  as  it  hath  received  by  grace  and  of  the  gift  of  God. 
We  believe  that  all  the  offspring  of  Adam  is  infected 
with  this  contagion,  which  we  call  original  sin,  that 
is,  a  stain  spreading  itself  by  propagation,  and  not  by 
imitation  only,  as  the  Pelagians  thought,  all  whose 
errors  we  do  detest.  Neither  do  we  think  it  neces- 
sary to  search,  how  this  sin  may  be  derived  from  one 
unto  another.  For  it  is  sufficient  that  those  things 
which  God  gave  unto  Adam,  were  not  given  to  him 
alone,  but  to  all  his  posterity:  and  therefore  we  in 
his  person  being  deprived  of  all  those  good  gifts,  are 
fallen  into  all  this  misery  and  curse.'     pp.  68,  89. 

This  Confession  begins  with  the  natural  liberty  of 
will  to  choose  this  way  or  that,  and  asserts  only  its 
moral  impotence,  as  swayed  by  this  bias  of  our  con- 
stitution as  affected  by  the  fall. 

'Confession  of  Belgia. — Therefore  whatever  things 
are  taught,  as  touching  man's  free  will,  [i.  e.  unbiased 
will,]  we  do  worthily  reject  them,  seeing  that  man  is 
the  servant  of  sin,  neither  can  he  do  any  thing  of  him- 
self, hut  as  it  is  given  him  from  heaven:  for  who  is  so 
bold  as  to  brag  that  he  is  able  to  perform  whatever 
he  listeth,  when  as  Christ  himself  saith,  no  man  can 


MORAL  INABILITY.       -  133 

Augsburgh  Confession.— Sinner  morally  dead,  not  in  natural  powers. 

come  unto  me  except  my  Fatlier  lohich  hath  sent  me  do 
draw  him?- 

From  the  context  of  this  verse,  and  the  Catechism, 
it  appears,  that  this  drawing  is  accomplished  by 
divine  teaching,  the  reading  and  preaching  of  the 
word,  made  effectual  by  his  Spirit. 

The  Augsburgh  Confession. — '  And  this  corruption 
of  man's  nature  comprehendeth  both  the  defect  of 
original  justice,  integrity,  or  obedience,  and  also  con- 
cupiscence. This  defect  is  horrible  blindness,  and 
disobedience,  that  is,  to  wit,  to  want  that  light  and 
knowledge  of  God,  which  should  have  been  in  our 
nature  being  perfect,  and  to  want  that  uprightness, 
that  is,  that  perpetual  obedience,  that  true,  pure,  and 
chief  love  of  God,  and  those  other  gifts  of  perfect 
nature,     p.  71. 

We  have  seen  that  Luther,  the  author  of  this  Con- 
fession, teaches  the  natural  ability  of  man,  as  a  free 
agent — that  all  actual  sin  is  voluntary:  and  every 
term  employed  here  implies  a  moral,  not  a  natural  de- 
fect, the  want  of  holiness,  and  the  power  of  evil  desire. 

All  these  witnesses  of  the  truth  hold  to  the  free- 
dom of  the  will  as  opposed  to  coercion  or  necessity, 
but  deny  its  right  inclination:  and  thus,  while  they 
justify  God's  requirements,  they  throw  the  sinner  at 
the  feet  of  sovereign  grace.  There  he  lies  dead,  hope- 
lessly dead,  not  in  body,  not  in  natural  power;  but 
dead  in  sins,  dead  morally,  dead  in  hatred  to  God, 
dead  in  unbelief,  dead  in  willful  and  obstinate  disobe- 
dience. And  this  distinction,  once  rightly  appre- 
hended and  firmly  fixed  in  the  mind,  is  equal  to  twenty 
12* 


134  MORAL  INABILITY. 

Difference  between  natural  and  moral  inability. 

thousand  candles  lighted  up  and  carried  through  the 
Bible. 

The  demand,  however,  is  often  made — what  differ- 
ence does  it  make  whether  the  inability  of  the  sinner 
is  natural  or  moral,  since  the  certainty  of  his  destruc- 
tion without  the  Holy  Ghost  is  just  as  great  in  one 
case  as  the  other?  and  of  what  consequence  is  an 
ability  never  exerted,  and  a  powder  that  is  never  em- 
ployed? 

It  might  as  well  be  said  that  muscular  power  un- 
exerted,  is  as  if  it  were  not;  that  intellect  perverted, 
is  the  same  as  idiocy;  and  conscience  seared,  is  the 
same  as  if  none  had  been  given;  that  bread  rejected 
to  starvation,  is  the  same  as  inevitable  famine — as  to 
say,  that  the  voluntary  perversion  of  all  the  competent 
powers  of  free  agency,  is  the  same  thing  as  their  non- 
existence. 

Does  it  amount  to  the  same  thing,  whether  a  man 
cannot  be  temperate,  or  can  be  and  will  not?  cannot 
be  honest,  or  can  be  and  will  not?  A  man  as  a  free 
agent,  may  indeed  make  his  own  destruction  as  cer- 
tain as  if  he  could  not  help  it.  But  does  it  make  no 
difference  as  to  his  character  and  desert,  whether  he 
perishes  from  the  natural  impossibility  of  being  saved, 
or  from  a  voluntary  obstinacy  in  rejecting  salvation? 
And  does  it  amount  to  the  same  thing,  in  respect  to 
the  character  of  God,  and  the  equity  of  his  govern- 
ment, whether  sinners  fall  under  the  operation  of  its 
penalties  from  a  natural  impossibility  of  laying  hold 
on  the  provision  for  escaping  them  by  a  timely  repen- 
tance, or  by  a  voluntary  obstinacy  in  despising  the 
riches  of  his  goodness?    Provided  a  man,  as  a  matter 


MORAL  INABILITY.  135 

Difference  between  the  natural  and  moral  government  of  God. 

of  certainty,  will  die  at  a  given  time — does  it  amount 
to  the  same  thing,  whether  he  was  killed  unavoidably 
or  committed  suicide?  was  thrust  off  a  precipice 
against  his  will,  or  threw  himself  off?  was  poisoned 
unwittingly,  or  purposely  poisoned  himself?  was  as- 
sassinated by  the  dagger  of  another,  or  thrust  a  dag- 
ger into  his  own  bosom? 

The  difference  between  ability  and  inability  in 
the  subject,  is  the  difference  between  the  natural  and 
moral  government  of  God;  in  one  of  which  his  power, 
and  wisdom,  and  goodness,  are  displayed  in  the  su- 
perintendence of  animals  and  instincts — in  the  other,  in 
the  administration  of  law,  and  the  government  of  the 
immortal  mind — in  which  his  justice,  and  the  rich- 
ness of  his  goodness,  and  the  exceeding  greatness  of 
his  mercy  are  to  shine  forever.  But  does  it  make  no 
difference,  whether  his  justice  is  illustrated  in  pun- 
ishing the  impotent,  or  the  unwilling?  and  his  mercy 
in  forgiving  the  nonperformance  of  impossibilities? 
or  the  wilful  disobedience  of  reasonable  requirements? 
It  makes  the  difference  between  fatalism  and  free 
agency — confounding  the  pretension  of  the  atheist  to 
a  temporary  animalism,  and  compelling  him  to  trem- 
ble under  the  responsibilities  of  an  everlasting  ac- 
countability, guilt  and  punishment. 

It  stops  the  pestilent  breath  of  sceptics  and  cavil- 
lers, by  which  thousands  of  youthful  minds  are  per- 
verted— reasoning  minds  perplexed — pious  minds 
distressed — and  dissolute  minds  comforted  with  the 
hope  of  impunity  in  sin — because  God  is  just,  and  sin 
is  unavoidable. 


136  MORAL  INABILITY. 

Calvinism.  Antinomianism.  Infidelity. 

It  takes  away  one  of  the  most  prevalent  tempta- 
tions to  the  infidelity  and  atheism  of  the  present  day. 
In  reading  the  works  of  atheists  and  infidels,  and 
in  attending  to  the  objections  of  perverted  minds, 
the  exciting  and  exasperating  cause  seems  to  be,  the 
supposition  of  accountability,  associated  with  a  con- 
stitutional, involuntary,  unavoidable  impotency.  It 
is  the  belief  that  the  Bible  and  the  Calvinistic  Con- 
fessions attach  accountability  and  punishment  to  a 
natural  impotency,  which  provokes  and  sustains 
three-fourths  of  the  atheism  and  infidelity  of  our 
nation.  They  would  admit  the  equity  of  a  govern- 
ment, requiring  according  to  what  a  man  hath — but 
are  provoked  and  enraged  at  the  supposed  injustice 
of  punishment,  unconnected  with  the  possibility  of 
obedience  in  the  subject,  and  understanding,  and 
being  assured  by  masters  in  Israel,  that  the  Bible  and 
our  Confession  teach  this,  they  turn  and  rend  the  Bible. 
The  distinction  between  natural  and  moral  inability, 
counteracts  the  antinomian  perversions  of  the  Cal- 
vinistic system.  Through  all  periods  of  the  church 
since  the  reformation,  there  have  been  antinomian 
Calvinists,  and  eras  of  outbreaking  antinomian 
ultraism;  and  it  has  arisen  from  giving  to  the  de- 
crees of  God  and  their  execution,  the  force  of  irre- 
sistible causes,  and  to  man  the  action  of  a  passive 
machine;  and  though  in  some  it  has  stopped  in  the 
frozen  regions  of  intellectual  formality  and  presump- 
tuous reliance  on  God's  efficiency,  without  human 
instrumentality — in  the  less  intellectual  and  more 
heated  and  fanatical,  it  has  degenerated  not  unfre- 


MORAL  INABILITY.  137 

Difference  between  ancient  and  modern  antinomianism. 

quently  into  the  most  reckless  licentiousness.  So 
the  same  opinions  operated  among  the  Jews,  as  we 
learn  by  the  terrible  interrogations  of  the  prophet — 
'Will  ye  lie,  and  steal,  and  commit  adultery,  and 
swear  falsely,  and  burn  incense  unto  Baal,  and  come 
into  this  house  which  is  called  by  my  name,  and  say 
we  are  delivered  to  do  all  these  abominations?  We 
have  no  power  over  ourselves.  We  do  but  obey  the 
irresistible  laws  of  our  nature.  We  are  delivered  by 
the  constitution  God  has  given  us,  to  do  all  these 
things.'  The  only  difference  between  these  ancient 
and  modern  licentious  antinomians  is,  that  the  ancient 
denied  accountability  entirely;  while  the  latter  attach 
It  to  fatality,  and  bring  in  the  grace  of  God  to  de- 
liver from  a  natural  impotency.  All  these  obliqui- 
ties of  abused  Calvinism  have  been  pushed  out,  as  I 
believe,  by  the  system  of  a  supposed  fatality  of  will 
to  evil. 

The  one  is  the  occasion  of  great  perplexity  and 
suffering  to  the  pious,  and  not  unfrequently  to  chris- 
tian ministers.  They  submit  to  it  as  very  right,  be- 
cause God  does  it.  But  it  is  a  dark  and  painful  sub- 
ject— they  are  embarrassed  with  it  in  their  preaching, 
and  still  more  embarrassed  in  their  attempts  to  meet 
and  answer  the  objections  it  creates,  and  at  times 
are  excruciated  with  its  bearings  on  their  common 
sense  and  feelings. 

These  different  theories  manifest  their  different 
results  in  preaching.  The  one  tends  to  the  earnest 
inculcation  of  immediate,  spiritual  obedience,  after 
the  example   of  prophets,  apostles,  and   the  whole 


138  MORAL  INABILITY. 

Confession  of  Faith  misunderstood  and  misrepresented. 

Bible.  The  other  to  the  substitution  of  unregenerate 
prayers  and  strivings,  with  promises  of  gracious  aid; 
instead  of  commanding  and  entreating  all  men  every- 
where to  repent  and  fly  to  the  Savior,  by  the  wrath 
of  God  abiding  on  them,  and  the  terrors  of  the  Lord 
coming  on  them. 

The  different  effects  of  our  Confession,  when  ex- 
pounded, as  teaching  a  real  free  agency,  or  a  real 
fatality,  cannot  be  concealed  or  denied.  By  very 
large  portions  of  the  community,  the  construction 
of  natural  inability  in  our  Creed,  is  supposed  to  teach 
fatality,  associated  with  accountability,  environing 
our  church  with  the  most  rancorous  hostility  and 
immoveable  prejudice,  and  raising  up  between  our- 
selves and  other  denominations  an  impassable  barrier, 
and  giving  them  motive  and  opportunity  to  impede 
and  annoy  us.  The  most  successful  means  employed 
againt  our  church  in  many  places,  have  been  the 
printing  and  circulation  of  our  Confession,  as  a  text 
book  for  comment.  They  do,  indeed,  misunderstand 
and  misinterpret  its  meaning,  but  perhaps  honestly, 
inasmuch  as  they  are  sustained  by  the  exposition  of 
some  of  the  ministers  of  our  own  church — and  should 
the  highest  judicature  of  our  church  pronounce  the 
exposition  correct,  it  would  no  doubt  greatly  facilitate 
their  labor. 

In  addition  to  the  Christian  fathers  and  the  Protes- 
tant Confessions,  on  the  subject  of  moral  inability,  I 
refer  to  every  one  of  the  authorities  I  have  quoted, 
to  Luther,  Calvin,  Turretine,  Witherspoon,  Edwards, 
Bellamy,  Hopkins,  Dwight,  Spring  (father  and  son,) 


MORAL  INABILITY.  139 

Dr.  Greene's  and  Dr.  Witherspoon's  views  of  moral  inability. 

Wilson  of  Philadelphia,  Woods,  Tyler  and  Dr. 
Matthews,  as  teaching  the  moral  inability  of  man 
as  consisting  in  an  uncoerced  voluntary  aversion 
to  spiritual  obedience,  not  merely  in  consecutive 
volition,  but  in  a  permanent  character,  vi^hich  is 
voluntary  and  culpable,  because,  as  Turretine  says, 
'  founded  in  a  habit  of  corrupt  will.'  I  close  the  quo- 
tations with  Dr.  Greene's  account  of  moral  inability. 
He  says — 

'  I  conclude  the  present  lecture  with  a  quotation 
from  Dr.  Witherspoon,  in  which  my  own  views  of 
the  topic  before  us  are  correctly  expressed — "  As  to 
the  inability  of  man  to  recover  himself  by  his  own 
power,  though  I  would  never  attempt  to  establish  a 
metaphysical  system  of  necessity,  of  which  infidels 
avail  themselves  in  opposition  to  all  religion,  nor  pre- 
sume to  explain  the  influence  of  the  Creator  on  the 
creature;  yet  nothing  is  more  plain,  from  scripture, 
or  better  supported  by  daily  experience,  than  that 
man  by  nature  is  in  fact  incapable  of  recovery,  with- 
out the  power  of  God  specially  interposed.  I  will 
not  call  it  a  necessity  arising  from  the  irresistible 
laws  of  nature.  I  see  it  is  not  a  necessity  of  the 
same  kind  as  constraint;  but  I  see  it  an  impossibility, 
such  as  the  sinner  never  does  overcome."  ' — Christ, 
Advocate^  1831;  p.  349. 

If  there  be  any  doubt  of  Dr.  Witherspoon's  and 
Dr.  Greene's  meaning,  the  following  exposition  of 
Witherspoon  himself  may  throw  some  light  on  the 
subject. 

In   this  passage,  Witherspoon,  speaking  the  ap- 


140  MORAL  INABILITY." 

Inability  only  moral,  and  lies  in  aversion  of  the  heart  to  God. 

proved  sentiments  of  Dr.  Greene,  disclaims  the  infi- 
del system  of  natural  necessity,  asserts  an  incapacity 
in  man  to  recover  himself  to  holiness  without  the 
powder  of  God — not,  hov^ever  arising  from  the  irre- 
sistible laws  of  nature,  not  a  necessity  of  the  same 
kind  as  constraint,  but  such  an  impossibility  as  the 
sinner  never  does  overcome.  This  is  correct,  and  is  a 
good  statement  of  natural  ability  and  moral  inability. 
'  Since  mention  has  been  made  of  perfect  conformity 
to  the  will  of  God,  or  perfect  obedience  to  his  law,  as 
the  duty  of  man,  which  is  indeed  the  foundation  of 
this  whole  doctrine,  I  think  it  necessary  to  observe, 
that  some  deny  this  to  be  properly  required  of  man, 
as  his  duty  in  the  present  fallen  state,  because  he  is 
not  able  to  perform  it.  But  such  do  not  seem  to 
attend  either  to  the  meaning  of  perfect  obedience,  or 
to  the  nature  or  cause  of  this  inability.  Perfect 
obedience  is  obedience  by  any  creature,  to  the  ut- 
most extent  of  his  natural  powers.  Even  in  a  state 
of  innocence,  the  holy  dispositions  of  Adam  would 
not  have  been  equal  in  strength  and  activity  to  those 
of  creatures  of  a  higher  rank:  but  surely  to  love  God, 
who  is  infinitely  amiable,  with  all  the  heart,  and  above 
all,  to  consecrate  all  his  powers  and  faculties,  without 
exception,  and  without  intermission,  to  God's  service, 
must  be  undeniably  the  duty  of  every  intelligent  crea- 
ture. And  what  sort  of  inability  are  we  under  to 
pay  this?  Our  natural  faculties  are  surely  as  fit  for 
the  service  of  God  as  for  any  baser  purpose:  the  ina- 
bility IS  ONLY  MORAL,  AND  LIES  WHOLLY  IN  THE  AVERSION 
OF  OUR  HEARTS  FROM  SUCH  EMPLOYMENT.       DoeS  this  thcD 


MORAL  INABILITY.  141 

Man  by  nature  incapable  of  recovery  without  the  power  of  God. 

take  away  the  guilt  ?  Must  God  relax  his  law  because 
we  are  not  willing  to  obey  it?  Consult  even  modern 
philosophers;  and  such  of  them  as  allow  there  is  any 
such  thing  as  vice,  will  tell  you,  that  it  lies  in  evil  or 
misplaced  affections.  Will  then  that  which  is  ill  in 
itself  excuse  its  fruits  from  any  degree  of  guilt  or 
blame?  The  truth  is,  notwithstanding  the  loud 
charge  of  licentiousness  upon  the  truths  of  the  gos- 
pel, there  is  no  other  system  that  ever  I  perused, 
which  preserves  the  obligations  of  the  law  of  God  in 
its  strength:  the  most  part  of  them,  when  thoroughly 
examined,  just  amount  to  this,  that  men  are  bound, 
and  that  it  is  right  and  meet  and  fit  that  they  should 
be  as  good  and  as  holy  as  they  themselves  incline.' 
—  Witherspoon^  vol.  1,  p.  45. 

This  is  all  which  any  one,  from  Justin  Martyr  to 
this  day,  has  taught,  concerning  man's  natural  ability: 
viz.  that  he  is  able  to  obey,  in  respect  to  any  hind- 
rance arising  from  the  irresistible  laws  of  nature, 
including  necessity  of  sinning  of  the  same  kind  as 
constraint.  Yet  nothing  is  better  supported  from 
scripture,  than  that  man  by  nature  is  in  fact  incapa- 
ble of  recovery,  without  the  power  of  God  specially 
interposed,  though  not  'an  impossibility  such  as  the 
sinner  cannot,  but  such  as  he  never  does  over- 
come;' for,  as  Howe  says,  'notwithstanding  the 
soul's  capabilities,  its  moral  incapacity,  I  mean  its 
wicked  aversation  from  God,  is  such  as  none  but  God 
himself  can  overcome.  Now  if  all  these  writers, 
including  Dr.  Greene,  'disclaim,'  as  he  does,  'any 
metaphysical  system  of  necessity  of  which  infidels 
13 


142  MORAL  INABILITY. 

The  whole  orthodox  church  united  in  the  doctrine  of  natural  ability. 

avail  themselves  in  opposition  to  all  religion, — any 
necessity  of  persisting  in  actual  sin,  arising  from  the 
irresistible  laws  of  nature;  and  only  insist  that  by  the 
fall  such  an  aversation  of  man's  w'AX  from  God  has 
been  occasioned  as  constitutes  such  an  impossibility 
as  the  sinner  never  does  overcome:  I  think  it  must 
be  admitted  that  the  whole  orthodox  church  have  been, 
and  are,  singularly  united  in  the  doctrine  of  man's 
natural  ability  of  uncoerced  will,  and  in  his  moral 
impotency,  by  reason  of  a  biased  and  perverted  will. 

I  subjoin  a  few  examples  of  natural  and  moral  inabi- 
lity, as  the  terms  are  familiarly  employed  in  the  Bible. 

Natural  Inability. — '  Thou  canst  not  see  my 
face  and  live.'  Moses  desired  the  full  orbed  vision 
of  the  glory  of  God;  but  he  is  answered  that  it  would 
destroy  his  life,  his  natural  powers  could  not  sus- 
tain the  overpowering  manifestation.  David  said  of 
his  child,  after  its  death, '  can  I  bring  him  back  again?' 
and  Solomon, '  can  a  man  take  fire  in  his  bosom,  and 
his  clothes  not  be  burned?'  And  God  demands,  'can 
any  hide  himself  that  I  shall  not  see  him?'  'The 
Chaldeans  answered,  there  is  not  a  man  upon  the 
earth  that  can  show  the  king's  matter — tell  his 
dream  and  its  interpretation.'  '  They  which  would 
pass  from  hence  to  you  cannot;  neither  can  they  pass 
to  us  that  w^ould  come  from  thence.'  These  are  evi- 
dently specimens  of  natural  inability,  which  no 
willingness  or  effort  on  the  part  of  the  agent  could 
surmount. 

Let  us  now  look  at  the  same  terms  as  implying 
inability  from  disinclination  or  contrary  choice — 
'  aversation  of  will.' 


MORAL  INABILITY.  143 


Bible  distinction  between  natural  and  moral  inability— examples. 

'  With  God  all  things  are  possible:'  i.  e.  his  natural 
power  is  equal  to  any  act  which  is  not  in  its  own  nature 
an  impossibility.  'God  who  cannot  lie' — 'by  two  immu- 
table things  in  which  it  was  impossible  for  God  to  lie.' 
Is  God's  omnipotence  so  limited  that  for  want  of  power 
he  could  not  utter  falsehood?  Is  it  not  the  infinite 
aversion  of  his  holiness  which  constitutes  the  inabil- 
ity 1  '  The  strength  of  Israel  will  not  lie.  Your 
new  moons,  and  Sabbaths,  and  calling  of  assemblies, 
I  CANNOT  away  with;  it  is  iniquity,  even  the  solemn 
meeting.'  The  cannot  is  explained  to  mean  his  aver- 
sion to  hypocrisy  in  worship:  therefore  it  follows, 
*  when  ye  make  many  prayers  /  will  not  hear.' 

It  is  said  of  our  Savior,  that  '  he  must  needs  go 
through  Samaria.'  Was  he  compelled  to  go  through 
Samaria;  or  did  he  simply,  for  sufficient  reasons, 
choose  to  go  that  way  ? 

'He  could  not  do  mighty  works  there,  because  of 
their  unbelief.'  Did  the  unbelief  of  man  overpower 
divine  omnipotence,  so  that  Christ  had  no  ability  to 
work  miracles;  or  did  it  furnish  to  his  divine  wisdom 
such  reasons  against  it  as  made  him  prefer  not  to  do 
it,  expressed  by  the  phrase  could  not^  i.  e.  chose  not 
to  do  it? 

'Can  the  children  of  the  bride  chamber  fast  while 
the  bridegroom  is  with  them?'  Doubtless  they  pos- 
sess the  natural  ability.  But  the  meaning  is,  will 
they  choose  to  do  it?     Can  they — i.  e.  will  they? 

'  Can  ye  drink  of  the  cup  that  I  drink  of?'  It  was 
the  cup  of  suffering  and  of  ignominy;  and  he  meant 
not  whether  they  could  feel  pain,  and  persecution, 


144  MORAL  INABILITY. 

Bible  distinction  between  natural  and  moral  inability — examples. 

and  shame,  (for  he  told  them  that  they  should,)  but 
whether  they  were  willing,  and  believed  that  they 
should  continue  willing  to  suffer  with  him — '  can  ye,' 
i.  e.  are  you  and  shall  you  be  willing? 

'  If  it  be  possible,  let  this  cup  pass  from  me.'  Did 
our  Savior  doubt  whether  God  had  the  power  to 
deliver  him  instantly  from  suffering?  He  knew  he 
could  do  it;  and  only,  as  man,  was  not  certain 
whether  the  agony  he  had  already  suffered  might 
suffice,  or  the  expiation  demanded  more.  The 
phrase,  if  it  be  possible,  means  therefore,  if  it  be  wise 
and  seem  good  in  thy  sight — if  thou  art  satisfied  and 
willing,  let  this  cup  pass,  &c.;  but  if  otherwise,  not 
my  will,  but  thy  will  be  done.  '  Lord,  if  thou  wilt, 
thou  canst  make  me  clean:'  i.  e.  thou  canst  do  it,  if 
thou  art  willing,  implying  as  in  the  case  before,  that 
he  could  not  cleanse  him,  if  unwilling,  calling  unwil- 
lingness inability. 

'This  is  a  hard  saying — who  can  hear  it?'  This 
means  not  that  a  sinner  has  no  power  to  hear  the 
humbling  doctrine  of  total  depravity?  but,  who,  as 
we  say,  can  bear  it,  i.  e.  be  willing — be  pleased  with 
it?  From  that  time,  many  of  his  disciples  went 
back,  and  walked  no  more  with  him.  It  was  those 
that  could  not  hiear  such  sayings. 

'  Ye  cannot  drink  of  the  cup  of  the  Lord,  and  the 
cup  of  Devils.'  The  natural  ability  of  man  qualifies 
him  to  sit  at  either  table;  but,  while  he  prefers  the 
table  of  Christ,  he  cannot,  w^ill  not  prefer  the  table  of 
devils. 

'  The  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against  God,  not  sub- 


MORAL  INABILITY.  145 

Bible  distinction  between  natural  and  moral  inability — examples. 

ject  to  the  law  of  God,  neither  indeed  can  be.  If 
this  means  a  natural  inability,  how  does  regeneration 
help  the  matter,  as  it  includes  the  creation  of  no  new^ 
natural  powers  or  faculties?  But  if  it  means  that  the 
carnal  mind  is  one  which,  by  its  friendship  for  the 
world,  is  at  enmity  with  God,  then  it  is  plain  that 
the  mind  which  prefers  the  creature  to  God,  cannot 
at  the  same  time  prefer  God  to  the  creature,  though 
the  hindrance  is  not  natural,  but  the  inability  of  the 
will — a  moral  inability — a  duty  prevented  by  a  con- 
trary choice. 

'  And  Joshua  said.  Ye  cannot  serve  the  Lord,  for  he 
is  a  holy  God.'  The  people  understood  him  to  say, 
that  they  had  no  moral  ability — no  heart  to  serve  him, 
because  they  were  so  sinful.  But  they  replied, '  Nay, 
but  we  will  serve  the  Lord' — we  have  the  ability,  be- 
cause we  have  the  will. 

'How  can  ye  believe  who  receive  honor  one  of  an- 
other, and  seek  not  the  honor  that  cometh  from  God?' 
i.  e.  how  can  you  believe,  who  prefer  the  praise  of 
man  m,ore  than  the  praise  of  God?  who  voluntarily 
set  at  naught  Jesus  Christ? 

'  The  natural  man  cannot  know  the  things  of  the 
kingdom  of  God;'  but  why  can  he  not?  what  hinders? 

Ans.  'If  our  gospel  be  hid,  it  is  hid  to  them  who 
are  lost,  in  whom  the  God  of  this  world  hath  blinded 
the  hearts  of  them  that  believe  not.'  'No  man  can 
come  unto  me  except  the  Father  draw  him' — i.  e.  by 
his  hearing  and  being  taught  of  God — making  the 
reading,  and  especially  the  preaching  of  his  wofd,  the 
means  of  his  effectual  calling  by  his  Spirit. 

13* 


146  MORAL  INABILITY. 

This  distinction  not  confined  to  the  Bible,  but  universaL 

These  examples,  to  which  thousands  might  be  ad- 
ded, decide  that  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament,  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  do  maintain 
the  distinction  between  things  whose  existence  is 
perverted  for  want  of  sufficient  capacity  in  the  agent, 
and  things  which  lie  w^ithin  the  limits  of  his  capacity, 
and  are  only  prevented  by  his  choice — and  that  both 
are  expressed  by  the  terms  cannot,  impossible,  unable, 
&c. — ^leaving  it  to  the  nature  and  connections  of  the 
subject  to  indicate  the  peculiar  meaning — and  never, 
except  in  theological  controversy,  or  the  cavillings 
of  sinners,  leading  to  any  mistake. 

I  have  said  that  this  use  of  the  terms  cannot,  una- 
ble, &c.  to  indicate  those  things  which  men  are  able  to 
perform,  but  do  not  choose  to  do,  is  not  a  phraseology 
peculiar  to  the  Bible,  but  is  a  mode  of  speaking,  into 
which  the  universal  mind  of  man  in  all  nations,  ages, 
and  languages  has  fallen — from  the  familiarity  of  con- 
versational and  business  dialect,  up  to  the  most  la- 
bored efforts  of  argument  and  eloquence. 

I  ask  my  neighbor,  who  is  on  a  sick  bed,  are  you 
able  to  walk?  and  he  replies,  I  am  not.  When  re- 
stored to  health,  I  inquire  of  him,  can  you  assist  me 
in  my  business  to-day?  and  he  replies,  I  cannot.  I 
should  be  glad  to  oblige  you,  but  my  own  business 
compels  mc  to  go  another  way — or  in  the  language 
of  the  gospel,  'I  must  needs  attend  to  my  own  mat- 
ters.' How  often  when  a  man  is  provoked  at  the 
conduct  of  his  neighbor,  do  we  hear  the  indignant 
exclamation,  'it  is  too  bad — I  cannot  bear  it.'  And 
how  common  is  it  to  say  of  a  man,  strongly  prejudiced 


MORAL  INABILITY.  147 

Examples  from  theological  writers — Edwards  and  Buck. 

by  interest  or  passion — he  cannot  hear,  cannot  see, 
cannot  understand — and  of  the  miser,  when  the  cry 
of  the  widow  and  the  fatherless  assails  him — he  can- 
not give.  Gold  is  his  god,  and  his  heart  is  made  of 
stone. 

The  following  examples  from  Edwards,  and  Buck, 
and  a  few  other  writers  of  eminence,  will  suffice  both 
to  illustrate  the  nature  of  the  distinction  between 
natural  and  moral  inability,  and  the  usus  loquendi  of 
theological,  political,  and  literary  authors. 

Edwards. — '  To  give  some  instances  of  this  moral 
inability — a  woman  of  great  honor  and  chastity,  may 
have  a  moral  inability  to  prostitute  herself  to  her 
slave.  A  child  of  great  love  and  duty,  may  be  una- 
ble to  be  willing  to  kill  his  father.  A  drunkard,  un- 
der such  and  such  circumstances,  may  be  unable  to 
forbear  taking  of  strong  drink.  A  very  malicious  man 
may  be  unable  to  exert  benevolent  acts  to  an  enemy, 
or  to  desire  his  prosperity;  yea,  some  may  be  so  under 
the  power  of  a  vile  disposition,  that  they  may  be  un- 
able to  love  those  who  are  most  worthy  of  their 
esteem  and  affection.  A  strong  habit  of  virtue,  and 
a  great  degree  of  holiness,  may  cause  a  moral  inability 
to  love  wickedness  in  general,  may  render  a  man  un- 
able to  take  complacence  in  wicked  persons  or  things; 
or  to  choose  a  wicked  life,  and  prefer  it  to  a  virtuous 
life.  And  on  the  other  hand,  a  great  degree  of  habit- 
ual wickedness  may  lay  a  man  under  an  inability  to 
love  and  choose  holiness;  and  render  him  utterly  un- 
able to  love  an  infinitely  holy  being,  or  to  choose  and 
cleave  to  him  as  his  chief  good.' 


148  MORAL  INABILITY. 

Examples  from  political  and  literary  authors — Bacon — Johnson. 

Buck. 

Natural  Inability.  Moral  Inability. 

'  Cain    could  not    have  killed  '  Cain  could    not   have  killed 

Abel,    if    Cain    had  been    the  Abel,  if  Cain  feared  God,  and 

weakest,    and   Abel    aware    of  loved  his  brother. 

him.  Potiphar's   wife  could  not  re- 
Jacob  could  not  rejoice  in  Jo-  joice  in  it,  if  she  continued  un-_ 

seph's  exaltation  before  he  heard  der  it. 

of  it.  Had  that  woman  been  a  very 

The  woman  mentioned  in  2d  affectionate  mother, she  cowWnoi 

Kings  vi.  29,  could  not  kill  her  have  killed  her  own  son  in  a  time 

neighbor's  son  and  eat  him,  when  of  plenty,  as  she  did  in  a  time  of 

he  was  hid,  and  she  could  not  find  famine. 

him.  If  a  dutiful,  affectionate  son 

Hazael  could  not  have  smoth-  had  been  waiting  on  Benhadad 

ered  Benhadad,  if  he  had  not  in  Hazael's  stead,  he  could  not 

been  suffered  to  enter  his  cham-  have  smothered  him,  as  Hazael 

bar.'  did-' 

There  is  hardly  an  author  of  repute,  from  the  time 
of  Alfred  to  the  present  day — whether  a  poet,  a  his- 
torian, an  essayist,  or  a  metaphysician,  who  does  not 
atibrd  abundant  examples  of  such  use  of  the  word 
cannot.  I  select  a  few  from  known  and  classical 
authors. 

Lord  Bacon. — 'A  man's  person  hath  many  relations 
which  he  cannot  put  off.  A  man  cannot  speak  to  his 
wife,  but  as  a  husband;  to  his  son,  but  as  a  father;  to 
his  enemy,  but  upon  terms.'  p.  186. 

Dr.  Johnson. — ^^In  apologising  for  the  omission  of 
many  business  terms,  his  Dictionary  says — 'I  could 
not  visit  caverns  to  learn  the  miner's  language,  nor 
take  a  voyage  to  perfect  my  skill  in  the  dialect  of 
navigation,  nor  visit  warehouses  of  merchants,  and 
shops  of  artificers,  to  gain  the  names  of  wares,  tools, 
and  operations  of  which  no  mention  is  made  in  books.' 

Again,  moral  and  natural  inability  are  brought  to-^. 
gether  in  one  sentence: 


MORAL  INABILITY.  149 

Examples  from  Shakspeare,  Burke,  Webster. 

'There  never  can  be  wanting  some  who  will  con- 
sider that  a  whole  life  cannot  be  spent  on  syntax  and 
etymology,  and  that  even  a  whole  life  would  not  be 
sufficient.' 

Shakspeare — who  is  as  noted  for  using  language 
as  men  in  every  situation  use  it,  as  he  is  for  delinea- 
tion of  character — 

''Pray^  I  cannot. 
Tho'  inclination  be  as  sharp  as  will, 
My  stronger  guilt  defeats  my  strong  intent; 
And,  like  a  man  to  double  business  bound, 
I  stand  in  pause  where  I  shall  first  begin, 
And  both  neglect.' 
'  But  0,  what  form  of  prayer 

Can  serve  my  turn?    Forgive  me  my  foul  murder! 
That  cannot  be;  since  I  am  still  possessed 
Of  those  effects  for  which  I  did  the  murder, 
My  crown,  mine  own  ambition  and  my  queen.' 

Hamlet^  Scene  2,  Act  3. 

Burke. — '  I  cannot  remove  the  eternal  barriers  of 
creation.'  This  was  a  physical  impossibility.  But  is 
the  following,  occurring  just  before  in  the  same  speech, 
7;%5ica%  impossible?  'I  cannot  insult  and  ridicule 
the  feelings  of  millions  of  my  fellow  creatures,  as  Sir 
Edward  Coke  insulted  one  excellent  individual  (Sir 
Walter  Raleigh)  at  the  bar.'  Speech  on  Conciliation 
with  America, 

Webster. — '  This  court,  then,  does  not  admit  the 
doctrine,  that  a  legislature  can  repeal  statutes  creat- 
ing private  corporations.  If  it  cannot  repeal  them 
altogether,  of  course  it  cannot  repeal  any  part  of 
them,  or  impair  them,  or  essentially  alter  them  with- 
out the  consent  of  the  corporators.'  But  if  the  court 
had  chosen  to  be  unjust,  could  they  not  do  this?  Was 
it  physically  impossible? 


150  MORAL  INABILITY. 

Examples  from  Hamilton,  Story. 

So  in  the  same  speech  he  says  in  still  stronger  lan- 
guage— '  In  the  very  nature  of  things,  a  charter  can- 
not be  forced  upon  any  body;  no  one  can  be  compelled 
to  accept  a  grant.' 

But  is  it  literally  hnpossihle  for  one  to  be  compelled 
by  suitable  power  ? 

So  a  few  lines  after — '  It  cannot  be  pretended  that 
the  legislature,  as  successor  to  the  king  in  this  part 
of  his  prerogative,  has  any  power  to  revoke,  vacate, 
or  alter  this  charter.'  But  if  one  chose  to  pretend 
this,  could  he  not? — Webster'' s  Speech  in  case  Dart- 
mouth College  vs.  William  H,  Woodward. 

Alexander  Hamilton. — 'It  cannot  be  affirmed,  that 
a  duration  of  four  years,  or  any  other  limited  dura- 
tion, would  completely  answer  the  end  proposed.' — 
Fedxralistf'No,  61. 

Surely  he  knew  that  it  could  be  affirmed,  if  any 
chose  to. 

Judge  Story. — 'Had  the  faculties  of  man  been 
competent  to  the  framing  of  a  system  of  government 
which  would  leave  nothing  to  implication,  it  cannot 
be  doubted,  that  the  effort  would  have  been  made  by 
the  powers  of  our  Constitution.' — Com,  on  Constitu- 
tion, (abridged)  p.  147. 

It  certainly  could  not,  reasonably,  but  would  it  be 
out  of  the  power  of  mind,  to  do  so? 

But  it  is  said,  if  men,  as  free  agents,  are  in  reality 
able  to  obey  the  gospel — how  does  it  happen,  that 
under  such  a  pressure  of  motive,  no  one  of  the  human 
race  should  ever  have  done  it?  and  suppose  we  could 
not  tell,  and  should  admit  that  it  is  wonderful,  as 


MORAL  INABILITY.  151 

Sinful  nature  of  man  prevents  his  obedience  to  the  gospel. 

God  does — would  it  follow,  that  the  reason  is  the  nat- 
ural impossibility  of  evangelical  obedience?  How 
could  it  be  wonderful,  that  men  do  not  of  themselves 
obey  the  gospel,  if  the  reason  of  it  is  that  it  is  a  nat- 
ural impossibility  ?  Is  it  wonderful,  that  men  do  not 
create  worlds,  or  uphold  or  govern  the  universe  ?  and 
why  should  the  nonperformance  of  one  impossibility 
be  more  wonderful  than  another?  Can  there  be  no 
uniformity  of  character  without  a  coercive  necessity 
producing  it?  Is  not  God  of  one  mind,  immutable, 
yet  free?  Are  not  the  angels  free  who  kept  their 
first  estate?  And  are  not  the  fallen  angels,  though 
immutably  wicked,  as  voluntary  in  their  opposition 
to  God,  as  the  holy  angels  are  voluntary  in  their  obe- 
dience? As  to  the  uniform  disobedience  of  fallen  man 
until  renewed  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  we  have  only  to 
say,  it  is  a  matter  of  fact,  well  authenticated,  that 
free  agents  do  so — that  it  is  a  part  of  the  terriffic 
nature  of  sinful  man  to  baffle  all  motives,  and  be  vol- 
untarily but  unchangeably  wicked — persevering  in 
rebellion,  amid  commands,  prohibitions,  promises,  and 
threatenings,  and  the  entreaties  of  the  holy  universe, 
and  the  weepings  and  wailings  of  the  damned. 


ORIGINAL  SIN. 


There  is  no  subject  in  theology  on  which  it  is 
more  difficult  to  speak  with  clearness  and  accuracy, 
than  concerning  the  effects  of  the  fall  on  the  posterity 
of  Adam,  and  the  condition  of  the  human  mind  be- 
fore it  arrives  at  the  point  of  developing  its  intel- 
lectual and  moral  powers  in  actual  sin.  Nor  is  it 
wonderful,  because  neither  intuition  nor  philosophy, 
nor  personal  communion  with  infant  mind,  makes  us 
acquainted  with  its  attributes.  For  this  reason, 
when  I  have  spoken  on  the  subject,  I  have  confined 
myself  uniformly  to  the  facts  in  the  case  revealed  in 
the  Bible,  and  discarded  pertinaciously  all  theorizing. 

What  the  precise  errors  are,  which  I  am  supposed 
to  hold,  I  do  not  know;  but  from  the  evidence  relied 
on,  and  the  general  course  of  the  argument,  it  would 
seem  that  I  am  supposed  to  hold  the  Pelagian  doc- 
trine on  the  subject;  that  I  deny  that  Adam  was  the 
federal  head  and  representative  of  his  race;  that  the 
covenant  was  made  not  only  with  Adam,  but  also 
with  his  posterity;  that  the  guilt  of  his  sin  was  im- 
puted to  them;  that  there  is  any  such  thing  as  native 
depravity;  or  that  infants  are  depraved.  That  on 
the  contrary,  I  hold  and  teach,  that  infants  are  inno- 
14 


154  ORIGINAL  SIN. 


Error  of  faith  denied.  Circumstantial  evidence. 

cent,  and  as  pure  as  Adam  before  the  fall;  and  that 
each  one  stands  or  falls  for  liimself,  as  he  rises  to  per- 
sonal accountability;  and  that  there  is  no  such  thing 
as  original  sin,  descending  from  Adam  by  ordinary 
generation;  and  that  original  sin  is  not  sin,  or  in  any 
sense  deserving  of  God's  wrath  and  curse. 

Now  every  one  of  these  assumed  errors  of  my  faith, 
I  deny  to  be  my  faith.  They  ascribe  to  me  opinions 
which  I  have  never  held  or  taught,  and,  as  I  shall 
show,  there  is  no  evidence  that  I  ever  taught  one 
of  them. 

There  is  no  more  evidence  of  my  holding  or  teach- 
ing the  doctrines  of  Pelagius  on  original  sin,  than 
there  is  of  my  holding  the  doctrine  of  Mahomet,  or  the 
Brahmins,  or  the  Pope.  And  though  I  doubt  not  that 
my  direct  evidence  will  be  satisfactory,  I  will  not 
omit  that  which  is  collateral  and  circumstantial. 
My  religious  education  was  superintended  by  pious 
Calvinists  of  blessed  memory;  and  was  as  orthodox 
as  the  Assembly's  Catechism,  committed  to  memory, 
could  make  it.  My  convictions  of  sin  were  in  ac- 
cordance with  my  educational  belief,  and  were  deep 
and  distressing,  to  the  cutting  off  of  all  self-righteous 
hope  from  native  excellence,  or  acceptable  obedience 
'n  any  action,  social,  civil,  or  religious,  and  laid  me 
low  in  an  agony  of  self  despair,  at  the  footstool  of 
mercy,  as  unholy,  totally  depraved,  justly  condemned, 
and  hopeless  of  regeneration  and  pardon  but  through 
the  infinite  sovereign  mercy  of  God,  through  the 
merits  of  Christ.  And  the  change  which  led  me 
to  hope,  and  has  sustained  me  in  my  ministry,  and 


ORIGINAL  SIN.  155 


Theological  education — authors  studied. 


holds  up  my  hopes  of  heaven,  was,  I  full  well  know, 
'  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  nor  of  the  will 
of  the  flesh,  but  of  God;'  so  that  if  I  am  a  Pelagian 
now,  in  my  faith,  few  men  can  be  more  inexcusable 
in  obliterating  the  teachings  of  a  pious  education,  or 
the  teachings  of  God's  holy  Spirit  in  my  own  distress- 
ing experience.  But  I  have  not  gone  back.  I  remem- 
ber the  horrid  pit,  and  have  also  in  fresh  recollection 
the  wormwood  and  the  gall;  and  it  is  knowing  the 
terrors  of  the  Lord,  and  the  love  of  Christ  in  my  de- 
liverance from  them,  which,  if  I  am  not  deceived, 
have  sustained  and  animated  me  in  the  work  of 
the  ministry.  My  theological  education  was  un- 
der Dwight;  and  the  authors  which  contributed  to 
form  and  settle  my  faith,  were  Edwards,  Bellamy, 
Witherspoon,  Dwight,  and  Fuller.  With  such 
favorite  authors  for  my  guide,  I  have  perceived  in 
myself  no  retrocession  from  my  early  convic- 
tions. The  doctrines  which  have  constituted  the 
body  and  power  of  my  preaching,  so  far  as  it  has 
had  any,  have  been — the  doctrine  of  God's  decrees, 
the  fall,  the  native  and  total  depravity  of  man,  elec- 
tion, effectual  calling,  or  regeneration  by  the  special 
influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  justification  by  the  merits 
of  Christ  through  faith,  and  the  perseverance  of  the 
saints;  doctrines  not  commonly,  1  believe,  found  in 
alliance  with  Pelagian  notions  of  native  excellence 
and  regeneration  by  moral  suasion:  and  my  preaching, 
if  Pelagians  or  Unitarians  have  claimed  me,  has  never 
seemed  to  satisfy  them,  or  the  results  of  it  to  corres- 
pond with  what  they  claimed  to  be  the  proper  fruits 


156  ORIGINAL  SIN, 


Antinomianism  and  Pelagianism,  both  avoided. 

of  correct  preaching;  they  have  been  the  results  of 
Calvinistic  preaching,  in  convictions  of  sin  and  appa- 
rent conversions  to  God;  such  as  Pelagians  ridicule 
and  denounce  as  fanaticism,  instead  of  the  fruits  of 
the  Spirit. 

I  have  never  been  ultra  Calvinistic,  pushing  my 
opinions  towards  antinomian  fatality;  nor  have  I  at 
all  more  leaned  to  the  doctrine  of  Pelagain  free  will 
and  human  self  sufficiency;  and  in  doctrine  I  am 
what  I  ever  have  been,  having  gained  only  the 
more  accurate  and  comprehensive  knowledge  which 
use  and  study  afford,  and  the  facilities  of  presenting 
to  every  man  his  portion  in  due  season,  as  the  re- 
sult of  experience.  All  this  however  is  nothing  against 
positive  evidence  of  defection.  But  no  such  evidence 
has  been  produced.  The  chief  evidence  relied  on, 
is  contained  in  my  sermon  on  the  native  character  of 
man.  But  that  sermon  w  as  not  designed  to  teach,  and 
does  not  teach  professedly,  the  doctrine  of  original  sin. 
It  has  no  direct  respect  to  that  doctrine.  There  is 
not  a  word  in  the  sermon  designed  to  state,  explain, 
prove,  or  apply,  that  doctrine.  The  subject  of  the 
sermon  is,  the  total  depravity  of  adult  man,  and 
affords  not  the  least  evidence  of  what  my  opinions 
are  on  the  subject  of  original  sin.  By  the  laws  of 
interpretation,  therefore,  you  are  not  permitted  to 
travel  out  of  the  record,  and  apply  to  infants  and 
original  sin,  the  language  I  have  held  with  express 
and  exclusive  reference  to  the  total  depravity  of 
adult  man.  It  was  occasioned  by  a  local  exigency  in 
my  congregation,  the  restiveness  of  a  man  of  talents 


ORIGINAL  SIN.  157 


Analysis  of  sermon  on  native  character  of  man — title. 

and  learning  under  the  preaching  of  the  doctrine  of 
total  depravity,  especially  in  its  denial  of  the  native 
virtues  and  acceptable  doings  of  unregenerate  men. 
It  was  Pelagianism,  in  substance,  that  rose  up  against 
me,  and  the  sermon  was  purposely  constructed  so 
as  by  explaining  and  proving  the  doctrine  of  total 
depravity,  to  put  it  down.  The  correctness  of  this 
representation,  will  be  sustained  by  an  analysis  of 
the  sermon. 

ANALYSIS  OF  THE  SERMON  ON  THE  NATIVE  CHARACTER  OF  MAN. 

Its  title  precludes  any  reference  to  original  sin;  it 
is,  the  native  character  of  man;  meaning,  of  course, 
not  his  native  constitution,  but  the  character  wiiich 
all  men  first  form  who  come  up  to  personal  action. 
Native^  as  applied  to  character,  is  sanctioned  by  cor- 
rect theological  use,  and  means  the  character  which 
all  men  first  sustain,  in  the  exercise  of  their  own  pow- 
ers, under  the  perverting  influence  of  the  fall. 

The  text  has  exclusive  regard  to  adults,  to  regene- 
rated man:  'Whosoever  loveth  is  born  of  God.' 

It  is  regarded  in  its  exposition  as  holy  love — the 
fulfilling  of  the  law — the  principle  of  evangelical  obe- 
dience— religion — does  not  belong  to  men  by  nature 
— is  never  a  quality  of  his  heart  by  natural  birth,  and 
is  the  result  of  a  special  divine  interposition  which 
makes  him  a  child  of  God.  Both  the  text  and  intro- 
duction, therefore,  respect  regeneration  in  adult  man. 

It  is  the  object  of  the  sermon  to  prove,  that  man  is 
not  religious  by  nature — meaning  by  man,  the  race; 
and  by  'not  religious  by  nature,'  that  there  is  nothing 
14* 


158  ORIGINAL  SIN. 


Analysis  of  sermon  on  native  character  of  man — argument. 

in  the  constitution  of  adult  man,  of  which  religion  is 
ever  the  result,  without  a  change  of  heart  by  the 
special  influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  proof  in 
every  particular  respects  evidently  and  only  adult 
man  and  actual  sin. 

Universal  experience  evinces  that  the  supreme 
love  of  the  world  constitutes  the  first  character  of 
man.  All  men  are  conscious  that  they  set  their 
aftections  first  supremely  on  the  world,  and  not  on 
God.  Awakened  sinners  discover  that  they  have 
no  true  love  to  God,  and  christians  can  look  back  to 
the  time  when  evidently  they  had  none. 

The  history  of  the  world  is  inconsistent  with 
the  supposition  of  native  religion — its  idolatry,  its 
animalism,  gluttony,  intemperance,  and  lust — its 
wars,  frauds,  violence,  and  blood — love  to  God  and 
man  in  the  hearts  of  all  by  nature,  could  not  have 
made  such  a  history  as  that  of  our  world  has  been. 

The  Bible  affords  no  testimony  to  the  piety  of  man 
by  nature — says  nothing  good  of  the  human  heart — 
not  a  syllable. 

It  ascribes  to  the  heart  of  man  by  nature  a  charac- 
ter inconsistent  with  religion — evil  only,  deceitful, 
fully  set  on  evil,  desperately  wicked,  full  of  madness. 

The  scriptural  account  of  childhood  shows,  that 
man  is  not  born  religious.  Every  imagination  of 
the  heart  is  evil  from  his  youth — the  wicked  are  es- 
tranged from  the  womb — no  religion  born  with  them. 

All  the  generic  descriptions  of  the  race  are  such  as 
preclude  religion  as  the  native  character  of  man. 

Man  is  the  generic  of  the  race.     But  what  is  man 


ORIGINAL  SIN.  159 


Analysis  of  sermon  on  native  char,  of  man— reversal  of  argument. 

that  he  should  be  clean?  or  the  son  of  man  that  he 
should  be  righteous? 

The  world  is  another  generic  term  characteristic 
of  the  race.  But  it  is  a  world  which  hated  Christ, 
and  whose  friendship  is  enmity  with  God. 

The  flesh  is  another.  But  the  carnal  mind  is  en- 
mity against  God. 

The  whole  world  is  divided  into  classes,  and  all  men 
are  described  as  holy  or  unholy,  righteous  or  wicked. 
But  never  as  righteous  first,  but  always  as  wicked 
first,  and  as  becoming  righteous  by  the  power  of  the 
Spirit. 

It  was  while  we  were  enemies  that  Christ  died  for 
us;  and  it  is  only  by  being  reconciled,  that  we  be- 
come religious. 

It  is  the  direct  testimony  of  the  omniscient  God, 
that  all  have  gone  out  of  the  way — become  vile — 
none  that  do  good,  no  not  one. 

The  alledged  universal  necessity  of  a  change  to 
qualify  men  for  heaven,  is  proof  that  they  have  no 
religion. 

The  reversal  of  this  argument  shows  its  force.  If 
the  first  accountable  character  of  man  is  a  religious 
character^  this  entire  body  of  evidence  must  be  re- 
versed. All  men  must  be  conscious  of  supreme  love 
to  God  in  early  life;  and  conviction  of  sin  and  a  mor- 
al renovation  must  be  confined  to  those  who  have 
lost  their  religion;  while  the  great  body  of  christians 
must  be  supposed  to  be  such  without  the  conscious- 
ness of  any  change.  At  the  same  time  the  history  of 
the  world  must  be  found  to  be  a  history  of  the  fruits 


160  ORIGINAL  SIN. 


Analysis  of  sermon  on  native  char,  of  man— reversal  of  argument. 

of  piety — idolatry  itself  being  only  an  aberration  of 
religious  affection  in  the  fast  friends  of  God,  emulous 
to  please  their  heavenly  Father!  It  should,  moreover, 
be  found  written  upon  the  unerring  page,  'Every  im- 
agination of  man's  heart  is  good  from  his  youth.  The 
children  of  men  have  not  gone  out  of  the  way.  There 
is  none  who  doth  not  understand  and  seek  God,  and  do 
good,  no,  not  one.  The  heart  of  the  sons  of  men  is  full 
of  goodness,  out  of  which  proceed  holy  thoughts,  benev- 
olent deeds,  chastity,  truth,  and  reverence  for  God. 
What,  therefore,  is  man,  that  he  should  be  icicked?  or 
he  that  is  born  of  a  woman,  that  he  should  7iot  be  re- 
ligious? How  lovely  and  pure  is  man,  who  drinketh 
in  righteousness  like  water.  This  is  the  approbation, 
that  darkness  is  come  into  the  world,  and  men  have 
loved  light  more  than  darkness,  because  their  deeds 
are  good.  The  whole  w^orld  lieth  in  righteousness. 
He  [Christ]  Avas  in  the  world  and  the  world  knew 
him.  O  righteous  Father,  the  world  hath  known  thee. 
The  friendship  of  the  world  is  friendship  with  God, 
If  the  world  hath  loved  you,  ye  know  that  it  loved 
me  before  it  loved  you.  Be  ye,  therefore,  conformed 
to  the  world,  and  be  ye  not  transformed  by  any  re- 
newing of  your  mind.  My  Spirit  shall  always  strive 
with  man  because  he  is  spirit.  For  that  which  is  born 
of  the  flesh  is  spirit.  Marvel  not  that  I  say  unto  you 
ye  must  not  be  born  again.  For  the  works  of  the 
flesh  are  love,  joy,  peace,  faith;  and  the  fruits  of  the 
Spirit  are  love,  joy,  peace,  faith.  In  me,  that  is,  in 
my  flesh,  dwelleth  every  good  thing.  Jesus  Christ 
came  to  seek  and  to  save  those  who  were  not  lost; 


ORIGINAL  SIN.  161 


Analysis  of  sermon  on  native  character  of  man — inferences. 

and  he  died  not  for  his  enmies — not  the  just  for  the 
unjust,  but  for  his  righteous  friends.  The  gospel  de- 
mands of  men  no  new  character-^  and  all  the  doctrines 
of  the  Bible  imply  the  early  and  universal  piety  of  the 
human  family.' 

All  the  inferences  from  the  doctrine  as  thus  proved, 
refer  to  man  as  an  adult  subject  of  the  government  of 
God. 

1.  This  discussion  discloses  the  nature  of  depravity 
in  unrenewed  man — it  consists  in  the  want  of  love  to 
God,  and  loving  the  creature  more  than  God;  in  covet- 
ousness,  which  is  idolatry,  having  other  gods  before 
him. 

2.  The  depravity  of  adult  man  is  voluntary,  as  op- 
posed to  a  coercive  necessity  of  sinful  choice. 

3.  It  is  positive.  Not  merely  the  want  of  love  to 
God,  but  actual  transgression  against  God.  Active 
enmity. 

4.  It  is  great,  as  committed  against  a  being  of  in- 
finite excellence — a  violation  of  infinite  obligation, 
against  the  most  powerful  motives  in  the  most  aggra- 
vating circumstances,  and  with  unparalleled  obstinacy 
of  determination. 

5.  The  depravity  of  man  implied  in  the  absence  of 
religion  is  entire — fallen  adult  man  is  totally  depraved. 

6.  It  illustrates  the  nature  and  necessity  of  regen- 
eration, as  being  the  commencement  of  holy  love  to 
God  in  the  soul;  its  absence,  death  in  sin;  its  presence, 
by  the  power  of  the  Spirit,  a  resurrection  from  the 
dead.  It  is  a  change  perceptible  by  its  effects,  and 
instantaneous  in  its  commencement.     There  is  a  mo- 


162  ORIGINAL  SIN. 


Sermon,  where  written:  circumstances  which  occasioned  it. 

ment  when,  he  who  loved  the  world  more  than  God, 
gives  it  up,  and  gives  his  heart  to  God — a  time  when 
the  METANoiA  comes  to  pass. 

This  is  my  Pelagian  sermon.  A  sermon  on  total 
adult  depravity,  and  its  nature  as  voluntary,  consist- 
ing in  enmity  to  God,  selfishness,  pride,  covetous- 
ness,  idolatry,  impenitence,  and  unbelief. 

The  only  alledged  evidence  of  its  Pelagianism  is 
contained  in  what  is  said  about  the  voluntariness  of 
actual  sin  in  adult  man,  as  opposed  to  a  supposed 
created  instinct^  or  the  direct  efficiency  of  God,  pro- 
ducing actual  sin  by  an  irresistible  and  fatal  necessity; 
But  from  the  text,  subject,  argument,  and  inferences 
of  the  discourse,  it  is  undeniable  that  it  has  reference 
only  to  actual  sin  and  total  depravity,  and  has  no 
direct  reference  to  original  sin  at  all.  It  was 
written  in  Connecticut,  anterior  to  the  controversies 
which  now  agitate  the  church.  It  was  demanded 
to  encounter  and  resist  the  most  specious  Pelagian 
argument  against  the  total  depravity  of  man,  which 
I  have  ever  seen.  It  was  deduced  from  the  various 
noble  and  amiable  traits  of  human  constitution  and 
conduct  which  survive  the  fall,  and  are  always 
urged  as  matter  of  fact  exceptions  to  the  doctrine  of 
total  depravity.  Such  as  taste  and  admiration  of 
moral  fitness;  approbation  of  truth  and  justice;  con- 
stitutional kindness  and  sympathy,  and  compassion; 
the  natural  aiTections,  which  unite  the  family  in  all 
their  tenderness  and  power;  the  amiable  constitutional 
temperaments  which  survive  the  fall;  honor  and  hon- 
esty in  dealings,  and  liberality,  as  opposed  to  covetous- 


ORIGINAL  SIN.  163 


Sermon  written  against  Pelagianism. 


ness  and  miserly  meanness;  correct  morally;  power 
of  conscience;  public  spirit;  patriotism;  great  useful- 
ness, accompanied  by  a  copious  retinue  of  good  works. 
The  argument  against  total  depravity  was  written, 
and  read,  and  commented  on  with  great  ability,  and  in 
a  manner  which  compelled  me  to  provide  the  antidote. 
With  an  especial  view,  then,  to  meet  and  refute  these 
Pelagian  matter  of  fact  exceptions,  to  the  doctrine  of 
total  adult  depravity,  I  constructed  the  sermon  which 
is  now  adduced  in  evidence  against  me,  on  the  sub- 
ject of  original  sin.  I  began  with  the  position  that 
unrenewed  men  have  no  true  religion,  because  that 
was  a  point  conceded;  and  having  established  it,  as  I 
believed,  1  proceeded  to  draw  the  inferences  which,  as 
I  supposed,  cut  up  by  the  roots  these  Pelagian  virtues 
as  having  any  claim  to  be  considered  valid  exceptions 
to  the  doctrine  of  total  depravity;  leaving  in  its  full 
force  the  evidence  that  in  adult  man  there  dwelleth  no 
good  thing,  and  that  every  imagination  of  his  heart  is 
evil  only  continually.  Now,  that  this  sermon,  written 
on  purpose  to  put  down  the  Pelagian  exceptions  to 
total  depravity,  should  be,  years  after,  in  another  and 
distant  department  of  the  church,  quoted  and  admit- 
ted as  proof  of  my  Pelagianism,  would  be  an  anom- 
aly of  mental  obliquity  and  injustice,  which  I  am  sure 
cannot  find  a  place  in  the  judicatures  of  the  Presby- 
terian church.  Even  had  it  contained  in  the  ardor  of 
argument  expressions  not  sufficiently  guarded,  and 
which  by  possibility  might  be  interpreted  to  mean  her- 
esy, no  court,  in  the  unbiased  exercise  of  Christian 
candor,  would  permit  them  to  be  turned  aside  from  the 


164  ORIGINAL  SIN. 


Not  the  object  of  the  sermon  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  original  sin. 

main  design  and  governing  argument  of  the  discourse. 
Much  less  where,  though  it  was  not  the  object  of 
the  sermon  to  establish  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  it 
does  so  by  proving  two  of  the  fundamental  doctrines 
always  relied  on  by  the  orthodox  church,  and  by 
Edwards  in  particular,  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  origi- 
nal sin — I  mean  the  doctrine  of  total  depravity  and 
the  doctrine  of  regeneration.  One  of  the  main  argu- 
ments of  Edwards  to  prove  original  sin,  is,  the  uni- 
versality and  entireness  of  actual  sin:  from  which  he 
infers  that,  anterior  to  actual  agency,  there  is  in  all 
men,  as  a  consequence  of  our  federal  alliance  with 
Adam,  some  common  cause,  ground,  or  reason  of 
universal  and  total  actual  depravity,  which  he  calls 
'  the  influence  of  a  prevailing,  effectual  tendency  in 
the  nature  of  man,'  to  actual  sin.  And  thus  I  prove 
the  doctrine  of  original  sin;  incidentally,  indeed,  but 
really,  by  proving  the  actual,  universal,  total  deprav- 
ity of  man.  There  must  be,  and  there  is,  in  man, 
something  which  is  the  ground  and  reason  that  the 
will  of  fallen  man  does  from  the  beginning  act  WTong 
— something  anterior  to  voluntary  action.  To  say 
that  all  men  sin  actually,  and  entirely,  and  univer- 
sally, and  for  ever,  until  renewed  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  that  against  the  strongest  possible  motives,  mere- 
ly because  they  are  free  agents,  and  are  able  to  do 
so;  and  that  there  is  in  their  nature  as  affected  by  the 
fall,  no  cause  or  reason  of  the  certainty;  is  absurd.  It 
is  to  ascribe  the  most  stupendous  concurrence  of  per- 
verted action  in  all  the  adult  millions  of  mankind  to 
nothing.     The  thing  to  be  accounted  for  is  the  phe- 


ORIGINAL  SIN.  165 


Edwards  against  Arminian  theory  of  self-determination. 

nomenon  of  an  entire  series  of  universal  actual  sin; 
and  to  ascribe  the  universal  and  entire  obliquity  of 
the  human  will  to  the  simple  ability  of  choosing 
wrong,  is  to  ascribe  the  moral  obliquity  of  a  lost 
world  to  nothing. 

This  was  the  point  of  the  controversy  in  Edwards 
on  the  will,  against  the  Arminian  theory  of  self- 
determination.  The  free  agency  claimed  by  the  Ar- 
minian was  one  which  excluded  not  only  force  and 
absolute  necessity  of  nature  from  deciding  the  will, 
but  denied  the  existence  of  any  internal  constitution .^ 
or  objective  infiuence  of  motive,  as  connected  with 
our  constitutional  susceptibilities,  in  securing  the  ex- 
istence or  determining  the  moral  qualities  of  choice. 

Edwards  affirmed  that  there  must  be,  and  is,  ante- 
rior to  the  exercise  of  free  agency,  some  constitution 
of  the  agent  and  relevancy  of  motive,  as  the  ground 
and  reason  of  the  certainty  of  choice,  though  not  a 
coercive  cause;  and  his  antagonists  deny  that  there 
is  any  cause,  ground,  or  reason  of  the  certainty  of 
choice,  holy  or  unholy,  in  or  out  of  man,  anterior  to 
its  existence — assuming  the  necessity  of  a  perfect 
indifference  of  will  in  all  cases  immediately  anterior 
to  volition,  and  the  actual  uncertainty  of  choice,  as' 
affected  by  any  cause  or  reason  anterior  to  its  exis- 
tence; and  the  necessity  to  its  freedom  and  account- 
ability, that  in  every  case  it  should  be  the  simple, 
uninfluenced  energy  of  the  mind  itself.  And  what 
Edwards  attempts  to  prove,  and  does  prove,  in  his 
treatise  on  the  will  and  on  original  sin,  is,  that  to 
choice  of  any  kind  there  is  in  the  agent  some  consti- 
15 


166  ORIGINAL  SIN. 


Edwards'  views  corroborated  by  our  Confess,  and  standard  writers. 

tution  which  is  the  ground  or  reason  that  motives 
become,  not  indeed  the  coercive  causes,  but  the  cer- 
tain occasions  of  volition;  and  that,  in  man,  before 
the  fall,  there  was  a  constitution,  which  was  the 
ground  and  reason  of  the  unperverted  exercise  of  his 
will  and  affections  in  loving  and  obeying  God;  and 
that  by  the  fall  a  change  was  affected  in  the  nature 
of  man  anterior  to  voluntary  action,  which  is  the 
cause  or  reason  of  the  universal  certainty  of  the 
perversion  of  the  will  and  affections  of  fallen  man;  and 
that  the  antecedents  of  perfect  actual  holiness  and 
entire  actual  sin  are  properly  denominated,  with  ref- 
erence to  those  certain  results  in  action,  a  holy  or  an 
unholy  nature:  only  guarding,  as  our  Confession  does, 
alike  against  the  Antinomian  fatality  of  will  by  force, 
and  the  Arminian  self-determination,  without  any 
antecedent  constitutional  cause,  ground,  or  reason, 
within  or  without. 

These  views,  as  held  by  Edwards,  and  corrobora- 
ted by  our  own  Confession  and  the  standard  writers 
of  our  church,  comprehend  the  doctrine  which  I  have 
always  believed  and  preached;  and  never  have  I 
knowingly  and  intentionally,  at  any  time  expressed 
a  sentiment,  verbally  or  in  writing,  to  the  contrary. 

The  falseness  and  folly  of  the  common  notion  of 
the  self-determination  of  the  mind  by  its  own  energy 
of  will,  without  any  cause  or  occasion  even,  is  suffi- 
ciently manifest,  in  its  opposition  to  the  possibility  of 
moral  government  on  the  part  of  Gad,  or  the  possi- 
bility of  praise  or  blame  on  the  part  of  man:  for 
moral  government  is  the  government  of  a  lawgiver, 


ORIGINAL  SIN.  167 

Theory  of  self-determination  opposed  to  the  government  of  God. 

influencing  the  will  and  conduct  of  subjects  by  the 
influence  of  laws,  rewards,  punishments,  and  admin- 
istration. But  if  nothing  may  approach  the  mind 
in  the  form  of  influence,  having  any  tendency  to 
destroy  the  dignified  indifference  of  the  will,  or  se- 
cure the  certainty  or  probability  even  of  volition, 
then,  though  self-government  might  exist,  the  gov- 
ernment of  God  could  not;  and  nothing  but  the  most 
perfect  anarchy  could  exist  as  the  accidental,  un- 
caused, and  unoccasioned  action  of  millions  of  inde- 
pendent minds,  acting  without  any  cause,  ground,  or 
reason.  Indeed  it  would  render  choice  itself  impos- 
sible, as  it  supposes  a  mind  without  susceptibility  or 
desire  of  any  thing,  or  one  thing  more  than  another, 
— a  condition  of  mind  precluding  the  possibility  of 
choice,  which  always  implies  excited  desire,  and  a 
prospect  of  some  gratification,  and  without  which 
man  would  be  less  capable  of  choice  than  a  snail  or  an 
oyster:  and  even  if  he  could  choose,  without  desire, 
reason,  or  motive,  the  offspring  of  such  a  nondescript, 
mental  anomaly,  would  be  no  more  praise  or  blame 
worthy,  than  the  motions  of  a  pendulum  or  the  tick- 
ings of  a  watch — uncertain  of  being  till  they  come 
into  being,  and  coming  without  any  cause,  ground, 
or  reason — bubbles  from  the  bottom  of  the  muddy 
lake  might  as  well  be  regarded  as  accountable  and 
worthy  of  praise  or  blame  as  the  volitions  of  men. 

I  adopt,  therefore,  with  approbation,  the  language 
of  Professor  Hodge,  in  his  Commentary  on  Romans. 

'  Of  all  the  facts  ascertained  by  the  history  of  the 
world,  it  would  seem  to  be  among  the  plainest,  that 


168  ORIGINAL  SIN. 


Professor  Hodge's  views  of  original  sin  adopte4. 

men  are  born  destitute  of  a  disposition  to  seek  their 
chief  good  in  God,  and  with  a  disposition  to  make 
self-gratification  the  great  end  of  their  being.  Even 
reason,  conscience,  natural  affection,  are  less  univer- 
sal characteristics  of  our  fallen  race.  For  there  are 
idiots  and  moral  monsters  often  to  be  met  with;  but 
for  a  child  of  Adam,  uninfluenced  by  the  special 
grace  of  God,  to  delight  in  his  Maker,  as  the  portion 
of  his  soul,  from  the  first  dawn  of  his  moral  being,  is 
absolutely  without  example  among  all  the  thousands 
of  millions  of  men  who  have  inhabited  our  world.  If 
experience  can  establish  any  thing,  it  establishes  the 
truth  of  the  scriptural  declaration,  "  that  which  is 
born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh."  It  would  seem  no  less 
plain,  that  this  cannot  be  the  original  and  normal 
state  of  man;  that  human  nature  is  not  now  what  it 
was  when  it  proceeded  from  the  hand  of  God.  Every 
thing  else  which  God  has  made  answers  the  end  of  its 
being;  but  human  nature,  since  the  fall,  has  uniformly 
worked  badly;  in  no  one  instance  has  it  spontane- 
ously turned  to  God  as  its  chief  good.  It  cannot  be 
believed  that  God  thus  made  man;  that  there  has  been 
no  perversion  of  his  faculties;  no  loss  of  some  original 
and  guiding  disposition  or  tendency  of  his  mind.  It 
cannot  be  credited  that  men  are  now  what  Adam  was, 
when  he  first  opened  his  eyes  on  the  wonders  of  cre- 
ation and  the  glories  of  God.  Reason,  scripture,  and 
experience,  therefore,  all  concur  in  support  of  the 
common  doctrine  of  the  Christian  world,  that  the 
race  fell  in  Adam,  lost  their  original  rectitude,  and 
became  prone  to  evil  as  the  sparks  to  fly  upw^ard.' 


ORIGINAL  SIN.  169 


Original  sin  implied  in  the  sermon  on  native  character  of  man. 

But  in  addition  to  this  argumentative  implication  of 
original  sin,  I  do,  in  the  very  passage  claimed  to 
deny  it,  expressly  allude  to  and  recognize  its  exis- 
tence, as  a  reality,  only  limiting  its  action  as  Edv^ards 
and  our  Confession  do,  as  not  forcing  the  will,  or  by 
any  absolute  necessity  of  nature,  determining  it  to 
evil.  I  say: 

'  Whatever  effect,  therefore,  the  fall  of  man  may 
have  had  on  his  race,  it  has  not  had  the  effect  to  ren- 
der it  impossible  for  man  to  love  God  religiously; 
and  whatever  may  be  the  early  constitution  of  man, 
there  is  nothing  in  it,  and  nothing  withheld  from  it 
which  renders  [actual]  disobedience  unavoidable,  and 
[actual]  obedience  impossible.' 

Finally,  the  language  of  the  paragraph,  interpreted 
by  the  laws  of  just  exposition,  does  not  teach  or  im- 
ply a  denial  of  the  doctrine  of  original  sin. 

I  have  already  shown  that  my  sermon  on  the 
native  character  of  man,  was  not  designed  to  have 
any  reference  to  original  sin ;  that  it  spake  only  of 
the  present,  actual  condition  of  adult  mind;  and  that 
the  question  how  a  man  came  into  such  a  state,  was 
not  so  much  as  touched;  that  I  was  teaching  the  exis- 
tence of  total  depravity  against  a  wily  and  practised 
antagonist,  with  the  sole  view  of  cutting  up  his 
false  Pelagian  positions,  and  proving  total  depravity 
and  the  necessity  of  regeneration. 

To  comprehend  fully  the  import  of  my  language, 
it  must  be  understood  that  there  were  two  philoso- 
phical theories  in  respect  to  the  cause  of  adult  actual 
depravity,  the  one  holding  it  to  be  a  moral  instinct^ 
15* 


170  ORIGINAL  SIN. 


Two  philosophical  theories  respecting  adult  actual  depravity. 

a  created  faculty  of  the  soul,  as  really  as  any  other 
faculty  which  controlled  the  will  according  to  its 
moral  nature,  as  the  helm  governs  the  ship,  and  upon 
which  the  will  could  no  more  act,  than  the  ship  can 
act  on  the  helm.  The  other  a  philosophy  which  dis- 
cards this  instinctive,  involuntary  moral  taste,  and 
substitutes  the  direct  efficiency  of  God,  for  the  a^ea- 
^iowof  all  exercises  and  acts  of  choice,  good  and  bad. 
These  philosophical  theories  were  prevalent  long 
before  this  controversy  arose.  The  question  con- 
cerning original  sin,  was  not  discussed  in  my  congre- 
gation; touching  that  question,  all  w^as  as  quiet  as  the 
sleep  of  infancy.  The  question  was  as  to  the  volun- 
tariness of  the  depravity  of  adult  man.  Keep  this  in 
remembrance,  and  then  the  import  of  the  sermon 
cannot  be  misunderstood.  After  proving  that  the 
depravity  of  man  is  very  great,  I  proceed  to  say 
that  it  is  voluntary;  and  this  doctrine  I  advance  in 
opposition  to  the  philosophy  which  represents  man's 
actual  sill,  his  actual,  total  depravity,  as  being  the 
necessary,  coercive  result  of  a  moral  instinct,  or  of 
divine  efficiency.  The  question  was,  whether  the 
selfishness  and  enmity  against  God,  and  worldliness 
and  pride,  which  obstructed  evangelical  obedience, 
in  adult  man,  and  made  regeneration  by  the  Spirit 
indispensable,  was  a  state  of  mind  produced  and 
continued  by  a  coercive  necessity;  and,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  Bible  and  the  Confession  of  Faith, 
and  the  wdiole  orthodox  church,  I  say — no! — but, 
'  that  God  has  endued  the  will  of  fallen  man  with 
that  natural  liberty,  that  it  is  neither  forced,  nor  by 


ORIGINAL  SIN.  171 


All  actual  sin  is  voluntary — Dr.  Green. 


any  absolute  necessity  of  nature  determined  to  good 
or  evil.'  It  is  this  nature  of  adult  man,  in  a  state  of 
personal  accountability,  and  active  depravity  that  I 
am  speaking  of,  as  the  subject  and  whole  argument 
of  the  sermon  show,  in  every  sentence  and  word 
of  the  page  quoted;  and  it  is  of  this  total,  actual 
depravity  of  man,  which  makes  regeneration  by  the 
Spirit  necessary,  that  I  say  it  cannot  be  the  product 
of 'an  unavoidable  necessity;^  and  it  is  of  actual  holi- 
ness and  sin  that  I  am  speaking,  when  I  say,  that  to  a 
holy  or  a  sinful  nature,  perception,  understanding, 
conscience,  and  choice  are  indispensable.  And  is  this 
heresy?  Does  any  one  believe  that  personal  ac- 
countability, and  actual  sin,  and  holiness,  can  exist 
without  perception,  understanding,  conscience,  and 
choice;  and  that  the  Bible  and  the  Confession  of  Faith 
teach  it? 

Dr.  Green  says,  'the  parties  in  this  controversy  are 
agreed  that  all  actual  sin  is  voluntary,  and  therefore 
criminal  and  inexcusable.' — Ch,  Adv,  1831,  p.  348. 

Social,  representative  liability,  and  a  just  desert 
of  punishment  in  that  sense,  is  a  possibility  and  a 
reality;  but  a  social  liability,  and  personal  demerit, 
are  quite  different  things;  and  if  it  shall  be  made  to 
appear  that  the  Bible  and  the  Confession  do  teach 
the  possibility  of  personal  actual  sin,  without  the 
existence  of  the  faculties  of  perception,  understand- 
ing, conscience,  and  choice,  it  will,  as  I  believe, 
be  regarded  by  the  whole  church  of  God  as  a  new 
discovery. 

I  call  this  actual  depravity  of  man  native,  in  accord- 


172  ORIGINAL  SIN. 


Original  sin  one  of  the  causes  which  prevent  submission  to  God. 

ance  with  the  language  of  the  Bible  and  the  most 
approved  theological  writers,  to  indicate  its  univer- 
sality, as  what  all  men  come  to  by  nature,  i.  e.  by 
the  operation  and  influence  of  that  change  produced 
in  the  nature  of  man  by  the  fall — to  mark  its  posi- 
tiveness,  as  including  actual  enmity,  selfishness,  pride, 
and  idolatry,  instead  of  a  mere  want  of  conformity  to 
the  law  of  God — and  especially  to  designate  its  perma- 
nence as  compared  to  successive  acts  of  choice,  and 
especially  its  fearful  immutability  to  all  finite  pow- 
er. The  scriptures  speak  of  the  permanence  and 
immutability  of  man's  actual  depravity — as  a  heart 
full  of  madness  and  of  evil — fully  set  to  do  evil;  and 
Turretin  calls  it  a  '  voluntary  and  culpable  habit  of 
will;'  and  Edwards  says:  '  By  a  general  and  habitual 
moral  inability,  I  mean  an  inability  in  the  heart  to  all 
exercises  or  acts  of  will  of  that  nature  or  kind, 
through  a  fixed  and  habitual  inclination,  or  an  ha- 
bitual or  stated  defect,  or  want  of  a  certain  kind  of 
inclination.' 

Now,  not  only  has  all  I  have  said  on  the  page  ob- 
jected to,  a  reference  to  the  actual  sin  of  adult  man, 
as  the  ground  of  the  necessity  of  regeneration,  but  it  is 
all  so  guarded  and  tied  down,  and  related  to  the  sub- 
ject of  actual  sin,  that  it  can  by  no  possibility  be  torn 
away  from  it,  and  attached  to  the  subject  of  original 
sin.  For,  in  the  very  statements  I  make  about  the 
the  voluntary  nature  of  which  I  am  speaking,  I  allude 
to  the  fall  and  original  sin,  and  admit  and  include  its 
existence  among  the  causes  w^hich  fortify  adult  man 
against  submission  to  God,  as  I  have  more  fully  done 


ORIGINAL  SIN.  173 


Distinction  between  actual  and  original  sin. 

in  my  exposition  of  the  moral  inability  of  man  in 
this  discussion,  only  making  the  reservation  which 
the  Confession  makes — that  original  sin  does  not 
force  the  will  to  actual  sin,  nor  by  any  absolute 
necessity  of  nature,  determine  it  to  evil  so  as  that 
God  is  the  author  of  sin,  or  violence  offered  to  the 
will  of  the  creatures;  or  the  liberty  or  contingency 
of  second  causes  (the  power  of  choosing  life  or  death) 
taken  away,  but  is  rather  established. 

The  declarations,  that  there  is  a  time  when  actual 
sin  commences,  and  that  the  first  sin  is  voluntary,  un- 
coerced, inexcusable,  and  might  have  been  and  ought 
to  have  been  avoided  as  really  as  any  of  the  actual 
sins  that  followed  it,  will  not  I  apprehend  alarm  any 
large  proportion  of  the  church.  The  distinction  be- 
tween original  and  actual  sin  has  been  universal  in 
the  orthodox  church,  and  the  more  common  opinion, 
as  I  suppose,  has  always  been  that  actual  sin  does 
not  commence  from  the  womb,  and  that  the  time 
when  social  liability  is  succeeded  by  personal  demerit 
for  actual  transgression,  is  not  and  cannot  be  exactly 
known  to  any  but  the  eye  of  God.  What  I  have 
asserted  is,  that  whenever  personal  accountability 
does  commence,  the  sinner  is  a  free  agent,  and  inex- 
cusable for  his  first  as  really  as  for  any  other  actual  sin. 

I  perceive  that  what  I  wrote  ten  years  ago,  with 
my  eye  wholly  on  the  subject  of  man's  nature  as  an 
actual  sinner  and  totally  depraved,  read  by  a  person 
at  the  present  time,  in  a  state  of  alarm  and  excitement 
about  the  Pelagian  heresy,  on  the  subject  of  original 
sin,  might,  if  not  read  with  great  care  and  attention, 


174  ORIGINAL  SIN. 


Sermon  on  original  sin — quotations. 


be  liable  to  be  misunderstood,  as  denying  that  de- 
pravity of  nature  which  is  peculiar  to  original  sin: 
but  the  moment  the  laws  of  candid,  correct  interpre- 
tation, are  applied,  the  possibility  of  such  an  interpre- 
tation is  precluded,  and  the  true  limit,  meaning  and 
intent  of  my  language  is  made  apparent.  For  it  can- 
not be  that  a  sermon  professedly  against  the  Pelagian 
notions  of  virtue  and  good  works  in  man,  as  excep- 
tions to  the  doctrine  of  total  depravity,  and  contain- 
ing a  formal  and  labored  argument  in  defence  of  that 
doctrine,  and  inferring  from  it  the  necessity  of  regen- 
eration, and  an  anti-Pelagian  instantaneous  regenera- 
tion by  the  special  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  should 
be  found  intentionally  teaching  the  very  doctrine  it  set 
out  to  oppose,  and  opposing  the  very  doctrine  it  was 
constructed  to  establish. 

Were  any  evidence  beside  the  internal  evidence  of 
the  discourse  itself  necessary,  it  is  contained  in  a 
sermon  written  about  the  same  time  that  this  sermon 
on  Native  Character  was  written,  and  written  profes- 
sedly on  original  sin.  The  following  are  my  com- 
ments on  several  passages  in  Romans  v. 

'  For  as  by  one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made 
sinners.'  Adam  was  created  holy  and  placed  in  a  state 
of  probation — the  consequences  of  which  were  to 
extend  not  only  to  himself,  but  to  his  posterity.  If 
he  continued  holy,  they  would  be  born  holy.  If  he 
became  a  sinner,  his  children  would  be  born  depraved. 
In  the  hour  of  temptation  he  fell  and  lost  for  a  world, 
the  inheritance  of  life,  and  entailed  upon  it  the  sad 
inheritance  of  depravity  and  wo. 


ORIGINAL  SIN.  175 


Lecture  on  the  fall  and  its  consequences— quotations. 

'For  if  by  one  man's  offence  death  reigned  by  one,' 
how  did  death  reign  by  one  man's  offence,  if  the 
depravity  of  his  race  was  not  the  consequence  of 
his  sin?  If  his  posterity  are  born  holy,  (innocent,) 
and  become  sinners  by  their  own  act,  uninfluenced 
by  what  Adam  did,  then  death  enters  the  world  not 
by  one  man,  but  by  every  man. 

'And  so  death  has  passed  upon  all  men,  for  that  all 
have  sinned.'  Passed  upon  infants  possessing  a  de- 
praved nature,  though  they  had  not  committed  actual 
sin.  They,  as  well  as  adults,  are  subjected  to  pain 
and  death.  They,  as  really  as  adults,  need  a  Savior, 
and  a  change  of  heart  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  fit  them 
for  heaven. 

'The  judgment  was  by  one  man  to  condemnation,' 
i.  e.  the  sin  of  one  man,  and  one  single  act  of  sin  sub- 
jected his  posterity  to  a  depraved  nature  as  the  con- 
sequence. 

I  give  these  quotations  to  show,  that  though  when 
writing  on  the  total  actual  depravity  of  man,  my  ex- 
pressions may  have  misled  some  to  understand  me  as 
denying  original  sin;  I  did,  at  the  same  period,  w^hen 
writing  professedly  on  that  subject — recognize  the 
doctrhie  fully  and  strongly,  and  at  the  time  was  nev- 
er, to  my  knowledge,  misunderstood. 

What  follows,  is  from  my  Lecture  on  the  Fall  and 
its  Consequences,  delivered  in  Boston  and  Cincinnati. 

'By  the  appointment  of  God,  the  character  and 
destiny  of  man  was  inseparably  connected  with  the 
conduct  of  Adam.  He  was  in  such  a  sense  the  fed- 
eral head  and  representative  of  his  posterity — that 


176  ORIGINAL  SIN. 


The  author's  views  of  original  sin. 


according  to  God's  appointment  called  a  covenant, 
had  Adam  continued  holy,  his  posterity  would  have 
continued  holy,  as  his  disobedience  has  drawn  after 
it  the  defection  of  the  race.  The  universal  bias  of 
man  to  evil  is  denominated  a  depraved  nature,  on 
account  of  its  universal  tendencies  to  actual  sin.' 

Here  I  might  stop ;  for  I  am  under  no  obligation 
to  volunteer  statements  of  my  opinions,  in  respect 
to  the  subjects  on  which  I  am  accused.  My  errors 
are  to  be  shown  by  evidence;  and  I  say  that,  in  this 
case,  the  evidence  has  utterly  failed;  and  I  might, 
therefore,  repel  the  charge  of  heresy,  as  not  estab- 
lished. But  I  have  no  secrets  on  this  subject,  nor  in 
respect  to  any  of  the  religious  opinions  which  I  hold. 
At  my  time  of  life,  and  especially  under  the  circumstan- 
ces in  which  I  am  placed,  both  as  pastor  of  a  flock, 
and  an  instructer  of  the  rising  ministry  of  the  church, 
I  have  no  right  to  any  secret  opinions.  I  scorn  con- 
cealment, and  therefore  I  will  declare  with  all  open- 
ness, the  things  which  I  do  believe.  The  presbytery 
shall  not  suspect  me  of  being  a  heretic.  If  I  am  a 
heretic,  they  shall  know  it.  You  shall  have  in  respect 
to  my  views  of  original  sin,  the  truth,  the  whole 
truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth. 

1.  As  to  the  federal  or  representative  character  of 
Adam,  and  the  covenant  with  him  and  his  posterity. 
I  have,  through  my  w^hole  public  life,  believed  and 
taught,  that  the  constitution  and  character  of  his  en- 
tire posterity,  as  perverted  or  unperverted,  depended 
on  his  obedience  or  defection;  and  that  he  was  in  this 
respect,  and  by  God's  appointment,  constitutionally 


ORIGINAL  SIN.  177 


Dr.  Bishop  on  Social  Liabilities. 


the  covenant  head  and  representative  of  his  race. 
And  that,  in  this  view,  all  mankind  descending  from 
him,  by  ordinary  generation,  sinned  in  him^  and  fell 
with  him  in  his  first  transgression:  that  is,  their  char- 
acter and  destiny  were  decided  by  his  deed. 

For  a  more  ample  expression  of  my  views,  I  sub- 
mit the  remarks  of  Dr.  Bishop,  President  of  the  Miami 
University,  on  the  subject  of  Social  Liabilities^  the 
best  name  that  was  ever  devised  for  the  idea.  A  name 
which,  I  hope,  we  shall  all  remember  and  fix  in  our 
minds,  as  it  is  calculated  to  avoid  much  error  which 
has  arisen  from  the  use  of  other  phraseology.  In  re- 
spect to  the  book  from  which  I  am  about  to  quote,  I 
heartily  thank  that  great  and  good  man,  for  having 
condensed  so  much  truth  into  so  small  a  compass; 
and  I  do  believe  that  the  simple  substitution  of  this 
technic,  'social  liability,' would  carry  us  all  out  of  the 
swamp  together.  For  we  in  fact  think,  and  ought  to 
speak,  the  same  thing.  After  illustrating  the  social 
liabilities  of  men,  for  the  conduct  of  others  in  the 
family,  in  commercial  relations,  and  as  parts  of  a  na- 
tion, and  as  social  and  moral  beings  affected  by  the 
nameless  influences  of  the  christian  example  and 
deeds  of  our  fellow-men,  he  proceeds  to  say: 

'  1 .  That  every  man  is  by  his  very  nature,  intimate- 
ly connected,  in  a  great  variety  of  ways,  with  thou- 
sands of  his  fellow-men,  whom  he  has  never  seen;  and 
that  the  conduct  and  the  character  of  a  single  indi* 
vidual  may  have  an  extensive  and  a  lasting  influence 
upon  millions  of  his  fellow-men,  though  far  removed 
from  him,  both  as  to  time  and  place. 

16 


178  ORIGINAL  SIN. 


Social  liabilities  classed  under  two  general  heads. 

'  2.  That  these  liabiUties  may  be  classed  under  two 
general  heads,  viz: — Natural  and  Positive.  The  son 
inherits  a  diseased  or  a  healthy  body,  and,  in  many 
cases,  also  an  intellectual  or  moral  character;  and 
generation  after  generation  sustains  the  character  of 
their  ancestors,  by  what  may  be  called  a  natural  in- 
fluence. Like  produces  and  continues  like.  But  in 
commercial  and  political  transactions,  lasting  and  im- 
portant liabilities  are  created  and  continued  by  posi- 
tive arrangements. 

'3.  That,  in  all  cases  of  social  liabilities,  individual 
and  representative  responsibility,  are  always  kept 
distinct.  Nor  is  it,  in  the  most  of  cases,  a  very  diffi- 
cult thing  to  have  a  clear  and  distinct  conception  of 
these  two  distinct  responsibilities. 

'Every  citizen  of  these  United  States,  who  thinks 
at  all,  must  feel  that  himself  and  his  children,  and  his 
children's  children,  are  deeply  interested  in  the  con- 
duct and  character  of  the  president  of  the  United 
States,  for  the  time  being.  An  able  and  virtuous 
president,  with  an  able  and  wise  and  faithful  cabinet, 
must  be  a  great  blessing  to  the  millions,  both  the  born 
and  unborn,  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic.  And,  on 
the  other  hand,  a  weak  and  a  wicked  president,  and 
cabinet,  must  be  the  occasion  of  inconceivable  in- 
conveniences, and  real  privations  and  sufferings,  to 
countless  millions,  both  of  the  present  and  succeeding 
generations.  But  yet  no  man  ever  thought  of  attrib- 
uting to  himself,  or  to  his  children,  the  personal  wis- 
dom, or  intellectual  ability,  or  inflexible  integrity, 
which  has  marked  the  character  of  any  distinguished 


ORIGINAL  SIN.  17^ 

Executive  of  U.  S.        Terms  guilty  and  innocent  used  differently. 

executive  officer;  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  has  he  ever 
thought  of  being  charged  individually,  or  of  having 
his  children  charged  individually,  with  the  weakness, 
or  wickedness  of  a  bad  executive  officer.  He,  and 
his  children,  and  his  neighbors,  and  their  children,  feel 
and  acknowledge,  that  they  are  personally  and  deeply 
involved  in  the  consequences  of  the  official  acts  of 
these  men,  whether  these  consequences  are  of  a  ben- 
eficial or  a  hurtful  tendency;  but,  at  the  same  time, 
individual  and  personal  merit  and  demerit,  and  indi- 
vidual and  personal  responsibility,  are  clearly  under- 
stood, and  never,  for  a  moment,  merged  in  social  and 
representative  transactions. 

'From  a  view  of  the  above  facts  it  follows — 
'4.  That  the  terms  guilty  and  innocent^  must  with 
every  thinking  man,  be  used  in  a  different  sense,  when 
they  are  applied  to  responsibilities  incurred  by  the 
conduct  of  another,  from  that  in  which  they  are  used 
when  they  are  applied  to  personal  conduct.  In  the 
former  application,  guilty  can  only  mean  liability  to 
suffer  punishment,  and  imiocent  to  be  not  liable.  But 
in  the  latter  application,  they  mean,  having  violated, 
or  having  not  violated,  some  moral  or  positive  com- 
mandment. In  the  one  case,  the  terms  apply  to  a 
personal  act,  and  to  personal  character;  but  in  the 
other,  they  only  mark  the  nature  and  the  consequences 
of  a  certain  act  or  acts,  as  these  consequences  are  felt 
by  another  person, 

'  5.  In  every  case  of  social  liability,  unity  is  recog- 
nized. The  individuals  concerned  may  be  millions,  or 
only  two,  and  they  may  be  in  every  other  respect 


180  ORIGINAL  SIN. 


The  principle  applied  to  the  relation  of  Adam  to  his  posterity. 

and  bearing,  distinct  and  separate;  but  in  the  particu- 
lar case  in  which  liability  applies,  they  are  in  law, 
only  one  moral  person, 

'The  father  and  son,  the  ancestor,  and  the  descen- 
dant, have  only  one  common  nature,  or  one  common 
right.  In  commercial  transactions,  the  company  is 
owe,  though  composed  of  many  individuals;  and  the 
nation,  acting  by  the  constituted  authorities,  with  all 
her  other  varieties,  and  ditferences,  while  a  nation, 
continues  one  and  indivisible.' 

And  here  let  me  say,  that  this  principle  is  recog- 
nized in  the  relation  of  Adam  to  his  posterity,  and  of 
theirs  to  him,  so  that  the  effects  in  penal  evil,  while 
they  blasted  him,  blasted  them  also. 

There  is,  in  my  apprehension,  something  of  this 
constitutional  social  liability  pervading  the  whole 
moral  universe,  and  inseparable  from  the  nature  of 
mind  and  moral  government,  and  the  effects  of  temp- 
tation, character,  and  example.  It  is  probable,  that 
rational  beings,  constituted  as  they  are,  cannot  be 
brought  together,  so  that  the  action  of  one  shall  not 
in  some  degree  affect  the  character  of  others.  Wheth- 
er it  was  a  positive  appointment  merely,  or  whether 
it  was  an  inevitable  effect  flowing  from  the  nature  of 
things,  or  which  is  more  probable,  the  united  result 
of  both;  such  was  the  constitution  established  by  God, 
between  Adam  and  his  seed;  so  that  if  Adam  should 
stand,  all  his  children  would  retain  their  integrity; 
but  if  he  should  fall,  they  would  fall  with  him.  And 
we  may  well  apply  to  the  fall  of  our  first  parents  the 


ORIGINAL  SIN.  181 


Adam  the  federal  head — imputation — personal  identity. 

affecting  language  of  Mark  Anthony  over  Caesar's 

body  : 

'O  what  a  fall  was  there  my  countrymen! 
Then  you,  and  I,  and  all  of  us  fell  down.' 

The  constitution  was  equally  certain  both  ways; 
and  in  this  respect  it  was  just  and  equal.  If,  then,  it 
be  asked,  whether  I  hold  that  Adam  was  the  federal 
head  of  his  posterity?  I  answer,  certainly  he  was; 
because  that  which  he  did,  decided  what  was  to  be 
the  character  and  conduct  of  all  his  posterity.  If  the 
inquiry  is  made,  whether  I  admit  the  imputation  of 
Adam's  sin?  If  imputation  be  understood  to  mean, 
that  Adam's  posterity  were  present  in  him,  and  thus 
sinned  in  him,  I  answer, No;  and  Dr.  Wilson  answers. 
No.  And  here  we  are  agreed.  For  if  mankind  were 
present  in  Adam,  and  in  that  sense  sinned  in  him, 
who  does  not  see  that  their  sin  was  actual,  not  origi- 
nal? personal,  and  not  derived,  or  transmitted,  or 
propagated? 

Again,  if  by  original  sin  be  meant,  that  Adam's* 
personal  qualities  were  transferred  to  his  posterity, 
(a  theory  which  like  the  other  had  once  its  day,)  I 
reply,  that  I  do  not  and  cannot  believe  any  such 
thing;  neither  does  Dr.  Wilson  believe  it.    And  here 
let  me  say,  that  all  the  alarm  and  all  the  odium  which 
has  been  excited  in  relation  to  the  divines  of  New 
England,  have  arisen  from  two  things:  their  opposi- 
tion to  the  notion  of  personal  identity  with  Adam; 
and  their  denial  of  the  transfer  of  his  moral  qualities 
to  his  posterity.  But  neither  of  these  things  is  involv- 
ed in  the  charges  preferred  against  me  by  Dr.  Wilson. 
16* 


182  ORIGINAL  SIN. 


True  doctrine  of  original  sin.  Meaning  of  the  word  guilt. 

What,  then,  is  the  true  doctrine  of  original  sin?  It 
is  the  obnoxiousness  of  Adam's  posterity  to  the  penal 
consequences  of  his  transgression;  to  all  that  came  in 
that  stream  of  evils  which  his  offence  let  in  upon  the 
world.  The  same  change  of  constitution,  of  nature 
and  character,  which  was  wrought  in  him  by  his 
transgression,  appears  in  them  through  all  their  gen- 
erations. This  liability,  this  exposedness  to  punish- 
ment is  in  the  Confession  called  'Guilt;'  but  that 
word,  as  then  used,  conveyed  theologically,  a  differ- 
ent meaning  from  what  is  now  usually  attached  to 
the  term.  By  guilt,  we  now  understand  the  desert 
of  punishment  for  personal  sin ;  but  this  is  not  the 
sense  of  the  word  in  the  Confession  of  Faith;  there 
it  means  liability  to  penal  evil  in  consequence  of 
Adam's  sin.  This  was  another  of  the  spots  where  I 
stumbled  once  at  the  language  of  the  Confession.  I 
could  not  consent  to  the  punishment  in  my  person 
of  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin  as  if  it  were  my  own.  To 
that  I  do  not  now  consent.  That,  I  now  believe  the 
Confession  of  Faith  does  not  teach;  but  I  cordially 
receive  it  as  teaching  that  Adam  was  our  represen- 
tative, and  that  on  his  breaking  God's  righteous  cov- 
enant with  him  as  such,  the  curse,  which  fell  like  a 
thunder  bolt  and  struck  the  offender,  struck  with 
him  all  his  posterity,  struck  all  the  animal  world, 
struck  the  ground  on  which  he  stood,  and  the  whole 
world  in  which  he  dwelt. 

'Earth  felt  the  wound.' 

This  social  liability  is  illustrated  in  the  fall  of  an- 
gels.    The  influence  of  one  master  spirit  drew  away 


ORIGINAL   SIN.  183 


Consequences  of  Adam's  sin. 


(as  it  would  seem  from  some  passages  in  Scripture) 
one  third  part  of  the  heavenly  host.  Let  sedition  and 
revolt  take  place  in  a  nation;  who  gets  it  up?  does 
the  entire  mass  of  the  nation  rise  spontaneously  and 
simultaneously  by  one  common  impulse?  No.  Some 
leading  mind  first  fires  the  train;  and  though  one  half 
the  population  may  ultimately  perish  under  the  reac- 
tion of  the  government,  their  death  is  to  be  traced  up 
to  one  master  spirit  as  the  mover  and  promoter  of 
the  whole  commotion.  Let  us  never  forget  the  max- 
im— it  is  worthy  to  be  written  in  letters  of  gold, '  in- 
dividual and  representative  responsibility  are  always 
to  be  kept  distinct.'  I  adopt  this  language  of  Dr. 
Bishop,  and  lay  it  in  as  an  exposition  of  my  own 
views,  with  respect  to  the  character  of  Adam,  to  guilt 
as  imputed,  and  to  punishment  as  the  consequence 
of  our  social  relations.  I  have  always  adopted  the 
language  of  Edwards,  as  correctly  stating  the  truth 
on  this  subject. 

'In  consequence  of  Adam's  sin,  all  mankind  do 
constantly,  in  all  ages,  without  fail  in  any  one  in- 
stance, run  into  the  moral  evil,  which  is,  in  effect, 
their  own  utter  and  eternal  perdition,  and  a  total 
privation  of  God's  favor,  and  suffering  of  his  ven- 
geance and  wrath.' 

So  that  the  real  doctrine  is  not  that  Adam's  posteri- 
ty were  one  in  personal  identity,  or  personally  guilty, 
by  a  transfer  of  sinful  moral  qualities  or  actions;  but 
simply  that  a  part  of  the  curse  of  the  law  fell  on  the 
posterity  of  Adam,  as  really  as  on  himself;  and  the 
punishment  was  the  loss  of  original  righteousness,. 


184  ORIGINAL  SIN. 


Change  wrought  in  the  constitution  of  human  nature  by  the  fall. 

which  would  have  been  their  inheritance  had  Adam 
obeyed,  and  that  change  of  the  constitution  of  human 
nature,  from  which  results  the  certainty  of  entire  ac- 
tual sin.    Now  what  the  particular  change  was,  which 
furnished  the  ground  of  this  absolute  certainty,  that 
all  mankind  would  run  into  sin,  I  do  not  profess  to 
understand.    Paul,  in  the  fifth  chapter  to  the  Romans, 
states  the  facts  of  the  case,  in  the  imputation  of  a 
nature  spoiled,  and  under  such  an  effectual  bias,  that 
as  soon  as  the  mind  acts,  it  acts  wrong.     This  is  all 
that  I  can  say  touching  original  sin.     All  is  confusion 
and  darkness  beyond  this.     I  have  no  light  and  pre- 
tend to  no  knowledge.  And  surely  there  is  no  heresy 
in  ignorance.  I  always  believed  in  original  sin,  and  that 
Adam  was  the  federal  head  of  his  posterity,  and  al- 
thoughlhave  notused  generally  that  particular  phrase, 
I  believe  as  much  in  the  truth  it  is  intended  to  convey, 
as  any  man  in  the  church.  I  believe  that  God  made  a 
covenant  with  Adam ;  that  the  effects  of  his  fall  reached 
all  his  posterity  and  produced  in  them  such  a  change, 
that  the  human  mind  which  before  willed  right,  thence 
forward  was  sure  to  will  wrong;  that  in  consequence 
of  the  change  which  took  place  in  Adam  himself,  the 
bias  to  holiness,  which,  had  Adam  stood,  would  have 
been  the  blessed  inheritance  of  all  his  children,  was 
utterly  lost,  so  that  they  now  inherit  a  corrupt  na- 
ture.    I  have  always  called  it  so.     I  have  expressly 
denominated  it  a  depraved  nature.     I  believe  they 
inherit  this  not  as  actual  personal  sin — that  it  comes 
upon  them,  not  as  a  punishment  of  their  personal 
sin,  but  as  a  political  evil  would  come  upon  the 


ORIGINAL  SIN.  185^ 


Imputation— Views  of  Turretin. 


people  of  the  United  States  from  the  evil  conduct  of 
their  chief  magistrate.  In  a  word,  that  we  share  the 
character  of  our  progenitor,  and  all  the  deplorable 
effects  of  his  transgression. 

The  following  additional  quotations  will  show  that 
these  views  are  the  received  doctrines  of  the  church; 

'  Turretin,'  as  quoted  by  Hodge  on  Romans, '  ( Theol, 
Elenclu  QuaesL  IX.  p.  678,)  says:  " Imputation  is 
either  of  something  foreign  to  us,  or  of  something 
properly  our  own.  Sometimes  that  is  imputed  to  us 
which  is  personally  ours;  in  which  sense  God  imputes 
to  sinners  their  transgressions.  Sometimes  that  is 
imputed  which  is  without  us,  and  not  performed  by 
ourselves;  thus  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  said 
to  be  imputed  to  us,  and  our  sins  are  imputed  to  him, 
although  he  has  neither  sin  in  himself,  nor  we  righte- 
ousness. Here  we  speak  of  the  latter  kind  of  impu- 
tation, not  of  the  former,  because  we  are  treating  of 
a  sin  committed  by  Adam,  not  by  us."  The  ground 
of  this  imputation  is  the  union  between  Adam  and 
his  posterity.  This  union  is  not  a  mysterious  identity 
of  person,  but,  1 .  "  Natural,  as  he  is  the  father,  and 
we  are  the  children.  2.  Political  and  forensic,  as  he 
was  the  representative  head  and  chief  of  the  whole 
human  race.  The  foundation,  therefore,  of  imputa- 
tion is  not  only  the  natural  connection  which  exists 
between  us  and  Adam,  since,  in  that  case,  all  his  sins 
might  be  imputed  to  us,  but  mainly  the  moral  and 
federal,  in  virtue  of  which  God  entered  into  covenant 
with  him  as  our  head."  Again, "  We  are  constituted 
sinners  in  Adam  in  the  same  way  in  which  we  are 
constituted  righteous  in  Christ."  ' 


ORIGINAL  SIN. 


Imputation — Views  of  Tuckney,  Owen. 


'  Tuckney  {Praelectiones,  p.  234:)  "  We  are  count- 
ed righteous  through  Christ  in  the  same  manner  that 
we  are  counted  guilty  through  Adam.  The  latter  is 
by  imputation,  therefore,  also  the  former."  "We  are 
not  so  foolish  or  blasphemous  as  to  say,  or  even  to 
think,  that  the  imputed  righteousness  of  Christ  makes 
us  formally  and  subjectively  righteous."  ' 

'  Owen  (in  his  work  on  Justification,  p.  236,)  says: 
"Things  which  are  not  our  own  originally,  inherently, 
may  yet  be  imputed  to  us,  ex  justitia,  by  the  rule  of 
righteousness.  And  this  may  be  done  upon  a  double 
relation  unto  those  whose  they  are,  1.  Federal. 
2.  Natural.  Things  done  by  one  may  be  imputed 
unto  others,  propter  relationem  foederalem,  because 
of  a  covenant  relation  between  them.  So  the  sin  of 
Adam  was  imputed  to  all  his  posterity.  And  the 
ground  hereof  is,  that  we  stood  in  the  same  covenant 
with  him  who  was  our  head  and  representative." 
On  p.  242,  he  says,  "This  imputation  (of  Christ's 
righteousness)  is  not  the  transmission  or  transfusion 
of  the  righteousness  of  another  into  them  which  are 
to  be  justified,  that  they  should  become  perfectly 
and  inherently  righteous  thereby.  For  it  is  impos- 
sible that  the  righteousness  of  one  should  be  trans- 
fused into  another,  to  become  his  subjectively  and 
inherently."  Again,  p.  307 :  "  As  we  are  made  guilty 
by  Adam's  actual  sin,  which  is  not  inherent  in  us, 
but  only  imputed  to  us;  so  are  we  made  righteous  by 
the  righteousness  of  Christ,  which  is  not  inherent  in 
us,  but  only  imputed  to  us."  On  page  468,  he  says: 
"  Nothing  is  intended  by  the  imputation  of  sin  unto 


ORIGINAL  SIN.  187 


Imputation — Views  of  Knapp,  Zachariae,  Bretschneider. 

any,  but  the  rendering  them  justly  obnoxious  unto  the 
punishment  due  unto  that  sin.  As  the  not  imputing 
of  sin  is  the  freeing  of  men  from  being  subject  or  lia- 
ble to  punishment."  It  is  one  of  his  standing  decla- 
rations, "  To  healienae  culpae  reus,  (i.  e,  to  be  guilty  of 
another's  crime)  makes  no  man  a  sinner."  ' 

'  Knapp  (in  his  lectures  on  theology,  sect.  76)  says, 
in  stating  what  the  doctrine  of  imputation  is,  "  God's 
imputing  the  sin  of  our  first  parents  to  their  descend- 
ants amounts  to  this:  God  punishes  the  descendants 
on  account  of  the  sin  of  their  first  parents."  This 
he  gives  as  a  mere  historical  statement  of  the  nature 
of  the  doctrine,  and  the  form  in  which  its  advocates 
maintained  it.' 

'Zachariae  {Bib,  Theologie,  YoL  IL  p.  394,  says: 
"  If  God  allows  the  punishment  which  Adam  incurred 
to  come  on  all  his  descendants,  he  imputes  his  sin  to 
them  all.  And  in  this  sense  Paul  maintains  that  the 
sin  of  Adam  is  imputed  to  all,  because  the  punishment 
of  the  one  offence  of  Adam  has  come  upon  all." ' 

'  Bretschneider,  when  stating  the  doctrine  of  the 
reformers,  as  presented  in  the  various  creeds  pub- 
lished under  their  authority,  says,  that  they  regarded 
justification,  which  includes  the  idea  of  imputation, 
as  a  forensic  or  judicial  act  of  God,  by  which  the  rela- 
tion of  man  to  God,  and  not  the  man  himself  was 
changed.  And  imputation  of  righteousness  they  des- 
cribed as  "  That  judgment  of  God,  according  to  which 
he  treats  us  as  though  we  had  not  sinned  but  had 
fulfilled  the  law,  or  as  though  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  was  ours."    This  view  of  justification  they 


188  ORIGINAL  SIN. 


Imputation — Views  of  Professors  of  Princeton  Seminary. 

constantly  maintained  in  opposition  to  the  Papists, 
who  regarded  it  as  a  moral  change  consisting  in  what 
they  called  the  infusion  of  righteousness.' 

I  shall  now  show  that  this  is  the  view  entertained 
by  the  professors  of  the  Princeton  Seminary. 

'  What  we  deny,  therefore,  is,  first,  that  this  doc- 
trine involves  any  mysterious  union  with  Adam,  any 
confusion  of  our  identity  with  his,  so  that  his  act  was 
properly  and  personally  our  act;  and  secondly,  that 
the  moral  turpitude  of  that  sin  was  transferred  from 
him  to  us;  we  deny  the  possibility  of  any  such  trans- 
fer. These  are  the  two  ideas  which  the  Spectator 
and  others  consider  as  necessarily  involved  in  the 
doctrine  of  imputation,  and  for  rejecting  which  they 
represent  us  as  having  abandoned  the  old  doctrine  on 
the  subject.' 

'The  words  guilt  and  punishnent  are  those  partic- 
ularly referred  to.  The  former  we  had  defined  to 
be  liability  or  exposedness  to  punishment.  We  did 
not  mean  to  say  that  the  word  never  included  the 
idea  of  moral  turpitude  or  criminality.  We  were 
speaking  of  its  theological  usage.  It  is  very  possible 
that  a  word  may  have  one  sense  in  common  life,  and 
another  somewhat  modified  in  particular  sciences.' 

'Punishment  according  to  our  views,  is  an  evil 
inflicted  on  a  person,  in  the  execution  of  a  judicial 
sentence,  on  account  of  sin.  That  the  word  is  used 
in  this  sense,  for  evils  thus  inflicted  on  one  person 
for  the  offence  of  another,  cannot  be  denied.  It 
would  be  easy  to  fill  a  volume  with  examples  of  this 
usage.'     jBi6/icaZ  i2e/?er^or?/,  pp.  346,  440,  441. 


ORIGINAL  SIN.  189 


Imputation — Views  of  Hodge. 


Hodge  on  Romans:  '  The  doctrine  of  imputation 
is  clearly  taught  in  this  passage.  This  doctrine  does 
not  include  the  idea  of  a  mysterious  identity  of  Adam 
and  his  race;  nor  that  of  a  transfer  of  the  moral  tur- 
pitude of  his  sin  to  his  descendants.  It  does  not  teach 
that  his  offence  was  personally  or  properly  the  sin 
of  all  men,  or  that  his  act  was,  in  any  mysterious 
sense,  the  act  of  his  posterity.  Neither  does  it  imply, 
in  reference  to  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  that  his 
righteousness  becomes  personally  and  inherently 
ours,  or  that  his  moral  excellence  is  in  any  way  trans- 
ferred from  him  to  believers.  The  sin  of  Adam, 
therefore,  is  no  ground  to  us  of  remorse;  and  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  is  no  ground  of  self-compla- 
cency in  those  to  whom  it  is  imputed.  This  doctrine 
merely  teaches,  that  in  virtue  of  the  union,  represen- 
tative and  natural,  between  Adam  and  his  posterity, 
his  sin  is  the  ground  of  their  condemnation,  that  is, 
of  their  subjection  to  penal  evils;  and  that  in  virtue 
of  the  union  between  Christ  and  his  people,  his  right- 
eousness is  the  ground  of  their  justification.'     p.  221 . 

'Whatever  evil  the  scriptures  represent  as  coming 
upon  us  on  account  of  Adam,  they  regard  as  penal; 
they  call  it  death,  which  is  the  general  term  by  which 
any  penal  evil  is  expressed. 

'  It  is  not  however  the  doctrine  of  the  scriptures, 
nor  of  the  reformed  churches,  nor  of  our  standards, 
that  the  corruption  of  nature  of  which  they  speak,  is 
any  depravation  of  the  soul,  or  an  essential  attribute, 
or  the  infusion  of  any  positive  evil.  "  Original  sin," 
as  the  confessions  of  the  reformers  maintain,  "  is  not 
17 


190  ORIGINAL  SIN. 


Imputation — General  Assembly  in  case  of  Mr.  Balch. 

the  substance  of  man,  neither  his  soul  nor  body;  nor 
is  it  any  thing  infused  into  his  nature  by  Satan,  as 
poison  is  mixed  with  wine;  it  is  not  an  essential  attri- 
bute, but  ian  accident,  i.  e.  something  which  does  not 
exist  of  itself,  an  incidental  quality,  &c."  Bret- 
schneider.  Vol.  II.  p.  30.  These  confessions  teach 
that  original  righteousness,  as  a  punishment  of  Adam's 
sin,  was  lost,  and  by  that  defect  the  tendency  to  sin, 
or  corrupt  disposition,  or  corruption  of  nature,  is 
occasioned.  Though  they  speak  of  original  sin  as 
being,  first,  negative,  i.  e.  the  loss  of  righteousness; 
and,  secondly,  positive,  or  corruption  of  nature;  yet 
by  the  latter,  they  state,  is  to  be  understood,  not  the 
infusion  of  any  thing  in  itself  sinfid,  but  an  actual 
tendency  or  disposition  to  evil  resulting  from  the  loss 
of  righteousness.'     pp.  229,230. 

'We  derive  from  Adam  a  nature  destitute  of  any 
native  tendency  to  the  love  and  service  of  God;  and 
since  the  soul,  from  its  nature,  is  filled,  as  it  were, 
with  susceptibilities;  dispositions,  or  tendencies  to 
certain  modes  of  acting,  or  to  objects  out  of  itself,  if 
destitute  of  the  governing  tendency  or  disposition  to 
holiness  and  God,  it  has,  of  course,  a  tendency  to  self- 
gratification  and  sin.'  p.  231. 

I  now  refer  to  a  judicial  decision  of  the  General 
Assembly,  in  tlie  case  of  Mr.  Balch. 

'  The  transferring  of  personal  sin  or  righteousness 
has  never  been  held  by  Calvinistic  divines,  nor  by 
any  person  in  our  church  as  far  as  is  known  to  us. 
But,  with  regard  to  his  (Mr.  B.*s)  doctrine  of  original 
sin,  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  he  is  erroneous  in  rep- 
resenting personal  corruption  as  not  derived  from 


ORIGINAL  SIN.  191 


Imputation — Views  of  Dr.  Wilson. 


Adam;  making  Adam's  sin  to  be  imputed  to  his  pos- 
terity in  consequence  o^ u.  corruTpt  uRture  already  pos- 
sessed, and  derived  from,  we  know  not  what;  thus  in 
effect  setting  aside  the  idea  of  Adam's  being  the  fed- 
eral head  or  representative  of  his  descendants,  and 
the  whole  doctrine  of  the  covenant  of  works.' — As- 
semblifs  Digest,  p.  130. 

My  next  authority  is  Dr.  Wilson  himself. 

'  Let  us  guard  here  against  some  mistakes.  The 
doctrine  of  a  union  of  representation  does  not  involve 
in  it  the  idea  of  personal  identity.  It  does  not  mean 
that  Adam  and  his  posterity  are  the  same  identical 
persons.  It  does  not  mean  that  his  act  was  properly 
and  personally  their  act.  Nor  does  it  mean  that  the 
moral  turpitude  of  Adam's  sin  was  transferred  to  his 
descendants.  The  transfer  of  moral  character  makes 
no  part  of  the  doctrine  of  imputation.' 

And  now,  according  to  the  just  and  true  intent  of 
the  terms,  as  indicated  by  the  established  laws  of  ex- 
position, and  confirmed  by  the  standard  writers  of 
our  church,  acquiesced  in  and  corroborated  by  her 
highest  judicature,  I  believe  and  teach,  that '  Adam, 
being  the  root  of  all  mankind,  the  guilt  of  his  sin  was 
imputed,  and  the  same  death  in  sin,  and  corrupted 
nature  conveyed  to  all  his  posterity,  descending  from 
him  by  ordinary  generation:'  that  from  '  this  original 
corruption,  whereby  we  are  utterly  indisposed,  disa- 
bled, and  made  opposite  to  all  good,  and  wholly  in- 
clined to  all  evil,  do  proceed  all  actual  transgressions; 
and  that  the  covenant  being  made  with  Adam,  not 
only  for  himself  but  for  his  posterity,  all  mankind 
descending  from  him  by  ordinary  generation,  sinned 


192  ORIGINAL  SIN. 


Infants  the  subjects  of  original  sin. 


in  him  and  fell  with  him  in  his  first  transgression ;'  that 
'the  sinfulness  of  that  estate  whereinto  man  fell, 
consists  in  the  guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin,  the  want  of 
original  righteousness,  and  the  corruption  of  his  whole 
nature,  which  is  commonly  called  original  sin,  to- 
gether with  all  actual  transgressions  which  proceed 
from  it;  and  that  by  the  fall  of  our  first  parents  'all 
mankind  lost  communion  with  God,  are  under  his 
wrath  and  curse,  and  so  made  liable  to  all  the  mise- 
ries of  this  life,  to  death  itself,  and  to  the  pains  of 
hell  forever.' 

I  believe  also,  and  always  have  believed  and  taught, 
that  infants  are  the  subjects  of  original  sin,  and  as 
distinguished  from  actual  sin,  consisting  in  the  '  influ- 
ence of  a  prevailing  effectual  tendency  in  their  na- 
ture' to  actual  sin;  and  that  on  account  of  this  preva- 
lent tendency,  it  is,  in  the  Bible,  the  Confession,  and 
the  common  language  of  men,  justly  denominated  a 
depraved  nature;  and  that  being  thus  depraved,  and 
considered  in  their  social  liabilities  as  one  with  Adam, 
they  no  more  than  adults  could  be  saved  without  an 
atonement  and  the  special  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  regeneration,  to  overcome  and  remove  this 
bias  to  evil  of  original  corruption,  and  secure  the  un- 
perverted  exercise  of  their  voluntary  powers  in  spir- 
itual obedience,  and  ultimately  be  prepared  for  per- 
fect conformity  to  the  will  of  God  in  heaven.  I 
scarce  ever  attended  the  funeral  of  an  infant  without 
an  express  recognition  of  these  views  upon  infant 
depravity,  and  the  atonement  and  regeneration  as 
the  only  ground  of  hope  that  they  are  saved. 

I  close  this  discussion  in  respect  to  original  sin, 


ORIGINAL  SIN.  193 


Epitome  of  the  author's  views  on  original  sin. 

with  the  following  concise  epitome  of  my  own  views, 
which,  as  I  understand  and  believe,  have  been  and 
are  the  received  doctrines  of  the  church  of  God,  in 
every  age: 

1.  Original  sin  is  the  effect  of  Adam's  sin  upon  the 
constitution  of  his  race,  in  consequence  of  his  being 
their  federal  head  and  representative  by  a  divine  ap- 
pointment or  covenant. 

2.  It  does  not  consist  in  the  sinfulness  of  matter, 
according  to  the  Gnostics,  or  in  the  sinfulness  of  the 
soul's  essence,  according  to  the  Manicheans:  but 

3.  It  consists  in  the  perversion  of  those  constitu- 
tional powers  and  susceptibilities,  which  in  Adam  be- 
fore the  fall  eventuated  in  actual  and  perfect  obedi- 
ence, and  which  in  their  perverted  condition  by  the 
fall,  eventuate  in  actual  and  total  depravity. 

4.  It  is  in  its  nature  involuntary;  and  yet,  though 
certain  and  universal  in  its  influence  to  pervert  the 
will  and  affections,  does  neither  force  the  will,  nor  by 
an  absolute  necessity  of  nature  determine  it  to  evil, 
or  impair  obligation,  or  excuse  actual  sin.  It  de- 
scends from  Adam,  by  natural  generation,  through 
all  the  race. 

It  is  a  bias  or  tendency  of  nature  to  actual  sin, 
which  baffles  all  motives  and  all  influence  short  of 
Omnipotence,  to  prevent  its  eventuation  in  total,  act- 
ual depravity,  or  to  restore  the  perverted  will  and 
affections  to  holy  obedience. 

It  is  this  bias  to  evil,  the  effect  of  the  fall,  which, 
though  impaired  by  regeneration,  is  not  annihilated, 
but  remains  in  the  regenerate,  which,  combined  with 
17* 


194  ORIGINAL  SIN. 


No  evidence  to  sustain  the  charge  of  heresy. 

the  habits  of  actual  sin,  constitutes  the  law  in  the  mem- 
bers warring  against  the  law  of  the  mind,  preventing, 
until  the  soul  at  death  is  made  meet  for  heaven,  the  un- 
biased and  unperverted  exercise  of  the  will  and  affec- 
tions, in  perfect  accordance  with  the  moral  law. 

It  is  denominated  by  Edwards,  and  justly,  an  ex- 
ceedingly evil  and  depraved  nature,  as  being  in  all  its 
tendencies  and  all  its  actual  results,  adverse  to  the 
law;  and  on  the  ground  of  our  alliance  with  Adam, 
our  federal  head,  and  our  social  liability,  deserves 
God's  wrath  and  curse,  in  all  that  comes  to  pass  in 
perverted  constitution,  choice  and  character,  includ- 
ing the  evils  of  the  life  that  now  is,  death  itself,  and 
the  pains  of  hell  forever. 

Such,  on  the  subject  of  original  sin,  are  the  views 
which  I  have  always  held  and  taught  since  I  have 
been  in  the  ministry;  nor  has  any  evidence  been  pro- 
duced, that  I  have  ever  at  any  time  believed  or  taught 
the  contrary.  The  entire  evidence  relied  on,  is  a  mis- 
apprehension and  misinterpretation  of  the  passage  ad- 
duced from  my  sermon ;  and  there  is  now  no  evidence, 
not  a  syllable  of  evidence,  to  sustain  the  charge.  Should 
it  be  inquired,  why  I  did  not  explain  my  views  on 
original  sin,  and  the  misconceptions  of  my  discourse, 
to  Dr.  Wilson,  as  I  have  now  done,  and  save  our- 
selves and  the  church  the  affliction  and  annoyance 
of  such  a  controversy ;  I  answer,  that  I  often  assured 
Dr.  Wilson  that  he  misunderstood  my  views  and 
communications  on  that  subject,  and  requested  him, 
respectfully  and  earnestly,  three  or  four  times,  to 
permit  me  to  make  the  requisite  explanations,  and 
was  as  often  refused. 


TOTAL  DEPRAVITY, 


On  this  subject  my  doctrine,  and  the  evidence 
relied  on  for  its  support,  are  sufficiently  manifest  in 
the  epitome  which  I  have  given  of  my  sermon  on  the 
Native  Character  of  Man. 

It  includes  the  absence  of  all  holiness — the  want 
of  conformity  unto,  and  the  actual  transgression  of, 
the  law  of  God. 

It  is  universal — there  being  not  a  mere  man  of  all 
the  millions  of  Adam's  posterity  that  hath  lived  and 
not  sinned. 

It  is  entire — every  imagination  of  the  thoughts  of 
the  heart  being  evil  only — there  being  none  that  do 
good,  no  not  one. 

It  is  positive — as  including  the  actual  preference  of 
the  creature  to  the  Creator,  which  is  enmity  against 
God. 

It  is  voluntary— though  occasioned  by  original  sin, 
the  will  is  not  forced,  nor  by  any  necessity  deter- 
mined to  good  or  evil.  But  though  voluntary,  with 
the  possibility  of  turning  to  God,  it  is  spontaneously 
immutable  to  any  motive,  but  the  word  of  God  made 
effectual  by  his  Spirit. 

It  was  this  view  of  total  depravity  excluding  ail 


196  TOTAL  DEPRAVITY. 

Total  depravity  fully  taught  and  preached  by  the  author, 

native  virtue  from  the  heart,  motives,  words,  and 
deeds  of  man,  which  produced  the  reaction  that 
occasioned  the  sermon  on  the  native  character  of 
man. 

I  taught  with  the  Confession,  that  '  works  done  by 
unregenerate  men,  although,  for  the  matter  of  them, 
they  may  be  things  which  God  commands,  and  of 
good  use  both  to  themselves  and  others;  yet  because 
they  proceed  not  from  a  heart  purified  by  faith;  nor 
are  done  in  a  right  manner,  according  to  the  word; 
nor  to  a  right  end,  the  glory  of  God;  they  are  there- 
fore sinful,  and  cannot  please  God,  or  make  a  man 
meet  to  receive  grace  from  God.  And  yet  their 
neglect  of  them  is  more  sinful,  and  displeasing  unto 
God.' 

It  is  a  doctrine  which,  in  various  forms  I  have  ex- 
plained, and  proved,  and  preached,  and  applied,  more 
than  any  other,  as  being  especially  the  one  by  which 
the  commandment  comes  and  sin  revives. 


REGENERATION— OR  EFFECTUAL 
CALLING. 


In  respect  to  this  doctrine  I  am  not  apprised,  pre- 
cisely, what  is  the  form  of  error  which  I  am  supposed 
to  hold.  But  if  it  be  the  Pelagian,  as  I  conclude  from 
the  analogy  of  my  supposed  heresy,  on  the  subject  of 
original  sin,  it  must  be  that  I  deny  that  regeneration 
is  a  radical  change  of  character,  and  only  an  improve- 
ment of  the  good  principles  of  our  nature  by  moral 
culture.  That  it  is  in  any  special  sense  a  work  of 
God,  and  only  as  he  has  provided  the  instruction  and 
motives  which,  by  their  natural  influence  and  human 
endeavor,  produce  religion — and  that,  of  course,  re- 
generation is  a  gradual  and  not  an  instantaneous 
change. 

To  all  such  apprehensions  I  reply,  that  nothing  can 
be  more  contrary  to  the  entire  course  of  my  faith  and 
teaching  on  the  subject,  as  all  the  churches  know 
which  have  been  successively  under  my  pastoral 
care,  and  all  men  who  have  attended  my  ministry 
with  suflicient  constancy,  to  receive  the  image  and 
body  of  my  preaching.  There  is  no  subject  beside 
the  kindred  one  of  total  depravity,  which  I  have 
dwelt  upon  with  such  copiousness  of  explanation, 


198  REGENERATION. 

Topics  embraced  in  the  doctrine. 

proofs,  and  earnest  application — line  upon  line — in 
season  and  out  of  season,  as  on  the  subject  of  regene- 
ration— insomuch,  that  my  stated  hearers  would  as 
soon  think  of  suspecting  me  of  atheism  as  of  Pelagi- 
anism,  on  the  subject  of  regeneration. 

That  I  have  not  been  fully  understood  on  a  single 
point,  I  perceive;  but  that  I  shall  be  understood,  and 
understood  as  teaching  the  doctrine  in  accordance 
with  the  Bible,  and  the  Confession,  and  the  generally 
received  opinion  of  the  orthodox  church,  I  have  a 
comfortable  hope. 

I  am  aware  that  a  man's  simple  professions,  when 
under  suspicion  of  heresy,  are  but  a  poor  defence 
against  the  amplifications  of  imagination  and  fear, 
especially  when  divisions,  and  tumults,  and  swellings 
exist — there  may  be  for  a  season  little  to  choose  be- 
tween being  suspected  of  heresy,  and  being  guilty  of 
it.  Instead,  therefore,  of  making  mere  declarations 
of  my  belief,  I  shall  state  and  illustrate  my  views  on 
the  several  topics  belonging  to  the  subject  of  regen- 
eration, as  I  have  been  accustomed  to  state  them  in 
my  discourses  from  the  pulpit,  and  in  my  lectures  to 
the  students  under  my  care.     These  topics  are — 

1.  The  nature; 

2.  The  efficient  cause; 

3.  The  effectual  means;  and 

4.  The  necessity  of  regeneration. 

1.  The  nature  of  regeneration. — By  this  I  mean 
the  nature  of  the  change  which  is  produced  in  the 
subject  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  This,  according  to  my 
understanding  of  the  Bible,  is  correctly  disclosed  in 


REGENERATION.  199 


Nature  of  the  change  effected  in  regeneration. 

the  doctrine  of  effectual  calling  as  taught  in  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith  and  Catechisms,  as  including  'the 
enlightening  of  the  minds  of  men  spiritually  and  sav- 
ingly to  understand  the  things  of  God,  taking  away 
their  heart  of  stone,  and  giving  a  heart  of  flesh — re- 
newing their  wills  and  determining  them  to  that  which 
is  good,  and  effectually  drawing  them  to  Jesus  Christ 
— yet  so  as  they  come  freely,  being  made  willing  by 
his  grace — in  his  accepted  time,  inviting  and  drawing 
them  to  Jesus  Christ  by  his  word  and  spirit — so  as 
they  (although  in  themselves  dead  in  sin)  are  hereby 
made  willing  and  able  truly  to  answer  his  call,  and  to 
accept  and  embrace  the  grace  offered  and  conveyed 
therein;'  or  as  the  Shorter  Catechism  teaches,  more 
concisely  and  with  no  less  correctness: 

'Effectual  calling  is  the  work  of  God's  Spirit, 
whereby,  convincing  us  of  our  sin  and  misery,  en- 
lightening our  minds  in  the  knowledge  of  Christ,  and 
renewing  our  wills,  he  doth  persuade  and  enable  us 
to  embrace  Jesus  Christ,  freely  offered  us  in  the  gos- 
pel.' 

The  substance  of  what  is  taught  by  this  various 
phraseology  is,  that  a  change  is  effected  in  regenera- 
tion in  respect  to  man's  chief  end,  in  turning  from  the 
supreme  love  of  self,  to  the  supreme  love  of  God — 
from  gratifying  and  exalting  self,  to  gratifying  and 
exalting  God— a  giving  up  and  turning  from  the 
world  in  all  its  pomp  and  vanities  as  the  chief  good, 
and  returning  to  God  as  the  chosen  portion  of  the 
soul — withdrawing  the  affections  from  things  below, 
and  setting  them  on  things  above — ceasing  to  lay  up 


200  REGENERATION. 

The  Holy  Spirit  the  author  of  regeneration. 

our  treasure  on  earth,  and  laying  it  up  in  heaven — 
and  so  grieving  for  and  hating  our  past  sins,  as  that 
we  turn  from  them  all  to  God,  purposing  and  endeav- 
oring to  walk  with  God  in  all  the  ways  of  new  obe- 
dience. 

This,  it  will  not,  I  think,  be  doubted,  comprehends 
correctly  the  moral  change  w^hich  takes  place  in  re- 
generation. 

The  author  or  efficient  cause  of  regeneration 
IS  God.  By  efficient  cause  I  mean  that  power  with- 
out which  all  other  influence  is  vain,  and  by  which 
means  otherwise  impotent  are  made  effectual.  The 
power  then,  which  in  all  cases  is  the  immediate  ante- 
cedent and  effectual  cause  of  regeneration,  is  the  spe- 
cial influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  called  the 
Holy  Spirit,  not  by  way  of  any  preeminent  personal 
excellence,  but  as  the  divine  agent  to  whom  is  com- 
mitted the  work  of  commencing  and  perfecting  holi- 
ness in  the  hearts  of  men. 

That  God  is  the  efficient  cause  of  regeneration,  is 
plainly  taught  in  the  text,  and  throughout  the  Bible, 
in  the  various  forms  of  metaphor,  direct  testimony, 
and  multiplied  implications.  Is  moral  pollution  in 
the  way — '  I  w^ll  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and 
ye  shall  be  clean.'  Is  stupidity  and  insensibility  the 
impediment  to  be  removed — '  I  will  take  away  the 
stony  heart  and  give  a  heart  of  flesh.'  Is  the  condi- 
tion of  man  represented  by  the  battle  field,  a  capa- 
cious valley  whitened  with  bones — it  is  God  who 
says  unto  these  bones, '  Behold  I  will  cause  breath 
to  enter  into  you,  and  ye  shall  live.'    Is  it  the  help- 


REGENERATION.  2OI 


Power  of  God  in  regeneration,  supernatural. 


lessness  of  infancy  abandoned  in  the  open  field,  with 
no  eye  to  pity  or  arm  to  save— it  is  God  who  '  passes 
by  and  bids  us  live.'     Is  it  darkness  which  impedes 
our  salvation — it  is  '  God  who  commanded  the  light 
to  shine  out  of  darkness,  who  shines  in  our  hearts.' 
Is  death  the  calamity,  a  resurrection  is  the  remedy — 
'  You  hath  he  quickened  who  were  dead  in  trespasses 
and  sins,  and  raised  us  up  to  sit  together  in  heavenly 
places  in  Christ.'     Is  it  the  annihilation  of  spiritual 
life,  regeneration  is  a  new  creation — •  created  anew 
in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works.'     Is  it  the  old  man 
who  makes  resistance  to  the  claims  of  God — the  re- 
generated are  said  to  be  '  born  again,  not  of  blood,' 
i.  e.  not  by  natural  descent,  'nor  of  the  will  of  the 
flesh,'  the  striving  and  efforts  of  sinners  to  save  them- 
selves, «nor  of  the  will  of  man,'  the  efforts  of  men  to 
save  their  fellow  men, '  but  of  God ;  whosoever  loveth 

IS    BORN    OF    god.' 

The  POWER  OF  God  concerned  in  regeneration  is 
SUPERNATURAL.  It  is  SO,  1.  as  Compared  with  th^ 
power  of  any  created  agent,  man  or  angel. 

2.  It  is  supernatural,  as  above  the  power  of  any 
law  of  nature,  or  natural  efficacy  of  truth  or  motivcj 
in  the  ordinary  operation  of  cause  and  effect,  na- 
tural or  moral. 

3.  It  is  supernatural,  as  distinguished  from  the 
sta,ted  operations  of  divine  power,  which  are  con* 
cemed  in  upholding  all  things  and  guiding  them  in  the 
stated  order  of  cause  and  effect,  to  their  results,  as 
earth,  and  air,  and  rain,  and  sunshine  produce  vege* 
tation,  and  cause  harvests  to  wave  in  the  field. 

18 


202  REGENERATION. 


Redemption  limited  by  unerring  wisdom,  not  by  impotency. 

4.  It  is  supernatural,  as  being  an  interposition 
to  accomplish  unfailingly  a  change  in  the  will  and 
affections  of  men,  which  never  takes  place  without 
it.     And— 

5.  It  is  supernatural,  as  it  is  an  act  of  God's  al- 
mighty POWER — as  really  so  as  the  creation  of  worlds, 
or  the  resurrection  of  the  dead. 

The  question  has  been  started,  whether  God  is  able 
to  regenerate  any  more  than  he  does.  Unquestion- 
ably so  far  as  sufficient  power  is  concerned,  he  is  able 
to  subdue  all  things  to  himself.  The  limitation  in 
respect  to  the  application  of  redemption,  is  not  one 
of  impotency,  but  a  limitation  of  the  unerring  wisdom 
and  infinite  benevolence  of  God — the  limitation  of 
doing  always,  and  only  in  the  administration  of  grace 
that  which  seemeth  good  in  his  sight,  and  is  right  and 
best.  The  discriminations  of  his  justice  and  grace  are 
voluntary.  So  far  as  his  power  is  concerned,  he  is  as 
able  to  subdue  the  wills  of  rebels  as  to  control  the  ele- 
ments. In  his  moral  kingdom,  he  is  as  truly  the 
Lord  God  omnipotent,  working  all  things  according  to 
the  counsel  of  his  will,  as  he  is  in  the  government 
of  the  natural  universe.  He  has  placed  nothing 
which  he  has  made  beyond  the  reach  of  his  power; 
and  he  has  made  nothing  which  he  cannot  and  does 
not  govern,  according  to  the  counsel  of  his  own  will. 
The  power  of  God  in  regeneration  is  represented  as 
among  the  greatest  displays  of  his  omnipotence  ever 
made,  or  to  be  made,  in  the  history  of  the  universe. 
When  this  fair  creation  rose  fresh  in  beauty  from  the 
hand  of  God,  the  morning  stars  sang  together,  and  all 


REGENERATION.  203 

Regeneration  instantaneous,  not  progressive. 

the  sons  of  God  shouted  for  joy;  but  sweeter  songs 
will  celebrate,  and  louder  shouts  attend  the  consumma- 
tion of  redemption,  by  the  power  of  God's  Spirit;  and 
such  brighter  glories  of  God,  and  higher  illustrations 
of  his  power,  will  be  manifested  to  principalities  and 
powers  by  the  church,  as  will  cause  the  light  of  his 
glory  in  physical  creation  to  go  out  and  be  forgotten, 
as  the  stars  fade  and  are  lost  amid  the  splendors  of 
the  sun.  It  is  the  united  glory  of  God's  power  and 
goodness,  in  redemption,  and  not  the  wonders  of  phy- 
sical creation,  which  inspire  and  perpetuate  for  ever 
around  his  throne,  the  voice  of  praise,  as  the  sound  of 
many  waters  and  mighty  thunderings,  to  Him  who 
loved  us,  and  died  for  us,  and  washed  us  in  his  blood, 
and  made  us  kings  and  priests  unto  God. 

The  effect  of  this  divine  interposition  is  instanta- 
neous— in  a  moment,  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye.  It 
must  be  instantaneous  from  the  nature  of  the  case. 
If  man  is  an  idolater,  there  must  be  a  time  when  he 
gives  the  idol  up  for  God;  if  an  enemy,  there  must  be 
a  time  when  he  becomes  reconciled;  if  without  holy 
love,  there  must  be  a  time  when  it  begins  to  warm 
the  heart. 

The  graces  of  the  Spirit  admit  not  of  a  progressive 
(Creation — love  or  enmity,  penitence  or  impenitence, 
;faith  or  unbelief,  are  the  only  positive  conditions  of 
ihe  human  mind.  There  is  no  state  between  them. 
There  is  and  can  be  no  such  thing  as  love,  or  repen- 
itance,  or  f^itb,  half  formed,  and  progressive  to  a 
-completion. 

There  are  person^,  however,  of  some  seriousness, 


•^04  REGENERATION. 


Progressive  regeneration  fallacious  and  dangerous. 

who  seem  desirous  to  approximate  to  evangelical 
belief  on  the  subject  of  regeneration — who  admit  the 
necessity  of  a  change  in  human  character,  in  some 
degree  like  that  which  we  have  described,  only  it  is 
not  wholly  new,  but  the  result  of  the  progressive  cul- 
ture of  the  human  powers  by  divine  aid;  and  since 
on  both  sides,  we  believe,  they  say,  in  the  necessity 
holiness,  what  difference  does  it  make  whether  it 
comes  from  old  principles  or  new,  or  whether  the 
work  is  instantaneous  or  progressive. 

Whatever  might  be  thought  beforehand,  the  differ- 
ence in  experience  between  a  belief  in  instantaneous  or 
progressive  regeneration,  is  manifest  and  great.  The 
latter  assumes  fallacious  and  dangerous  views  of  hu' 
man  nature,  as  including  some  seed  of  virtue,  or  prin^ 
ciple  of  light  and  life,  which  needs  only  cultivation  to 
bring  it  up  to  the  maturity  of  holiness;  is  associated 
also  with  false  views  of  holiness,  as  consisting  in 
some  nondescript,  mystical  goodness,  which  grows 
imperceptibly  under  culture,  as  the  harvest  rises 
under  rain  and  sunshine. 

It  legitimates  as  virtues,  efficacious  to  save,  all 
those  grounds  of  fallacious  hope  which  I  have  already 
named — quelling  fear,  preventing  a  sense  of  sin,  and 
creating  hope  built  upon  the  sand. 

It  produces  likewise  and  fosters,  and  makes  obsti- 
nate, a  self-righteous  and  self-complacent,  self-justify- 
ing spirit,  while  it  creates  hostility  to  the  fundamen- 
tal doctrines  of  the  gospel — the  entire  depravity  of 
man,  the  necessity  of  a  radical  change  of  character, 
and  acquiescence  in   the  discriminations  of  divine 


REGENERATION.  205 


Effectual  means  of  regeneration,  the  word  of  God. 

justice  and  mercy,  in  the  punishment  or  renovation 
•and  pardon  of  sinful  men. 

And,  worst  of  all,  its  tendency  on  communities, 
is  to  cause  prejudice  and  virulent  hostility  not  only 
against  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible,  but  against  revela- 
tion itself,  and  to  produce  ultimately  scepticism  and 
rank  infidelity,  and  scoffing  at  the  Bible  and  the  work 
of  the  Spirit. 

The  effectual  means  of  regeneration  is  the 
WORD  OF  god.  By  effectual  means,  I  understand  the 
means  which  God  employs  and  renders  efficient  in 
producing  the  change.  That  he  accomplishes  the 
change  by  his  mighty  power  associated  with  means, 
is  the  unequivocal  testimony  of  the  Bible  and  the 
Confession  of  Faith.  Chosen  to  salvation,  the  Elect 
of  God  are,  through  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  and 
belief  of  the  truth  whereunto  he  called  them  by  the 
Gospel,''  The  Gospel  is  denominated  '  the  power  of 
God  and  the  wisdom  of  God  unto  salvation.'  'The 
law  of  the  Lord  is  perfect,  converting  the  soul.'  '  The 
word  of  God  is  quick  and  powerful.'  'The  seed  is 
the  word.'  '  Being  born  again,  not  of  corruptible 
seed,  but  of  incorruptible,  by  the  word  of  God; — and 
this  is  the  word  which  by  the  gospel  is  preached  unto 
you.'  '  Ye  shall  know  the  truth,  and  the  truth  shall 
make  you  free.'  '  Sanctify  them  through  thy  truth. 
Thy  word  is  truth.'  '  Seeing  ye  have  purified  your 
souls  in  obeying  the  truth  through  the  Spirit.'  '  They 
shall  be  taught  of  God.'  'I  drew  them  with  the 
cords  of  love.'  '  No  man  can  come  unto  me,  except 
the  Father  which  hath  sent  me  draw  him.'  '  Every 
18* 


toe  REGENERATION. 


Efficiency  of  God  and  instrumentality  of  his  word  united. 

one,  therefore,  which  hath  heard  and  learned  of  the 
Father,  cometh  unto  me.' 

This  is  only  a  small  portion  of  the  phraseology 
of  the  Bible  which  associates  God's  efficiency  with 
his  word,  in  regeneration.  That  such  instrumental- 
ity should,  in  direct  terms,  and  by  every  variety  of 
metaphor,  be  associated  with  the  power  of  God  in 
regeneration,  if  in  fact  no  such  instrumentality  is 
employed,  cannot  be  assumed  without  shaking  the 
foundation  of  all  confidence  in  the  teaching  of  the 
Bible.  Exposition  may  as  well  be  abandoned;  for 
nothing,  in  that  case,  can  be  taught  by  language,, 
which  theory  and  imagination  might  not  explain 
away.  We  might  as  well  deny  that  God  is  the 
efficient  cause,  as  that  truth  is  the  '  effectual  means'  of 
regeneration.  But  there  is  no  necessity  for  deny- 
ing either,  and  no  authority  for  stripping  either  class 
of  texts  of  their  natural  and  obvious  import,  to  mean 
nothing.  What  would  be  thought  of  the  expositor 
who  should  insist,  that  because  men  are  begotten 
again  by  the  wo7'd,  therefore  the  power  of  God  is  not 
concerned  in  regeneration,  and  that  it  is  all  a  matter 
of  moral  suasion  and  human  endeavor?  But  why 
should  the  efficiency  of  God  defraud  the  word  of  its 
alledged  instrumentality,  or  the  instrumentality  of  the 
word  exclude  the  power  of  God?  Is  the  union  of  both 
impossible?  It  cannot  be  impossible,  because,  un- 
questionably, in  the  government  of  the  natural  world, 
God's  almightiness  is  associated  with  the  instrumen- 
tality of  natural  causes,  and  may  be  just  as  possibly, 


REGENERATION.  20T 


Not  revealed  that  God  regenerates  without  means. 

if  God  pleases,  in  the  moral  world,  associated  witli 
the  instrumentality  of  moral  causes. 

To  what  purpose  are  laws  and  institutions  and 
the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  if  God  does  nothing  and 
can  do  nothing  by  their  instrumentality?  Are  laws 
and  institutions,  and  the  ministry  of  reconciliation, 
only  the  empty  attendant  symbols  of  God's  power? 
Does  it  correspond  with  the  usage  of  revealed  lan- 
guage, to  ascribe  instrumentality  to  the  impotent 
signals  and  attendants  of  God's  agency?  Is  it  ever 
said  that  God  inflicted  the  plagues  of  Egypt  by  Aa- 
ron's rod,  or  threw  down  the  walls  of  Jericho  by  rams' 
horns?  The  analogy  of  scriptural  use  forbids  the 
ascription  of  instrumental  agency  to  the  mere  sym- 
bols of  the  presence  and  power  of  God.  Nor  have 
I  been  able  to  find  any  declaration  in  the  Bible,  that 
God  regenerates  by  his  own  almighty  power,  without 
any  instrumental  agency.  The  scriptures  teach 
abundantly,  that  God  is  the  author  of  regeneration, 
and  that  it  is  the  instantaneous  efiect  of  his  omnipo- 
tence applied  with  a  direct  design  to  produce  it; 
but  the  fact  that  he  does  it,  and  that  it  is  an  illustri- 
ous act  of  omnipotence,  does  not  decide  Jiow  he 
does  itj  much  less  that  he  does  it  by  power  only, 
without  means;  while  all  the  passages  which  speak 
of  the  instrumentality  of  the  word,  prove  that  he 
does  not  regenerate  by  omnipotence  alone,  but  by 
power  associated  with  the  reading  and  especially  the 
preaching  of  the  word. 

With  this  view  of  the  subject  correspond  all 
the  implications  of  the  Bible.      If  the  gospel  pos- 


REGENERATION. 


The  word  and  Spirit  united  in  effectual  calling. 

sesses  no  adaptation  to  secure  in  any  way,  as  a 
means  in  the  hand  of  God,  the  renovation  of  the 
heart,  whence  the  transcendant  excellence  and  im- 
portance attached  to  it,  and  the  high  perniciousness 
and  criminality  of  error,  and  why  is  the  mighty  pow- 
er of  God  manifest  only  in  alliance  with  revelation? 
Is  the  truth  of  God  a  mere  arbitrary  association  of 
particular  opinions  with  particular  acts  of  God's  pow- 
er? It  cannot  be.  The  testimony  of  the  Bible  is 
express  the  other  w^ay. 

There  is,  however,  in  our  church,  no  need  of  con- 
troversy on  the  subject,  and  no  room  for  it. 

It  is  not  claimed  that  God  regenerates  by  the  truth 
without  an  interposition  of  the  exceeding  greatness 
of  his  own  power — and  without  denying  the  Con- 
fession and  Catechisms,  it  cannot  be  denied  that, 
what  is  accomplished  in  effectual  calling,  is  accom- 
plished by  his  word  and  Spirit. 

That  God  is  able  by  his  direct  immediate  power  to 
approach  the  mind  in  every  faculty,  and  to  touch  all 
the  springs  of  action  and  affection,  I  have  never 
denied  or  doubted.  And  that  he  is  able  by  the  direct 
interposition  of  his  power,  so  to  rectify  the  mind  of 
man  as  disordered  by  the  fall,  as  that  the  consequence 
would  be  the  immediate,  unperverted  exercise  of  the 
w^ill  and  affections  in  obedience,  is  just  as  evident  as 
that  God  can  create  minds  in  such  a  condition  that 
they  will  in  these  respects  go  right  from  the  begin- 
ning— and  that  in  this  manner  he  does  retrieve  the 
consequences  of  the  fall,  in  respect  to  those  who  die 
in  infancy,  would  seem  to  be  as  evident,  as  that  he 


REGENERATIO]^.  209^ 


A  question  not  of  possible  or  impossible,  but  of  fact. 

saves  them  at  all.  That  he  is  able,  also,  if  it  seemed 
good  in  his  sight,  to  reveal  the  truth  and  manifest 
himself  savingly  to  the!  heathen,  is  as  plain  as  that 
he  could  reveal  the  same  truths  to  holy  men  of  old, 
and  make  them  effectual  through  a  written  word 
and  established  ordinances.  Nor  is  it  denied  or 
doubted,  in  respect  to  possibility,  that  God,  if  it 
seemed  wisest  and  best  under  the  gospel,  might  make 
such  manifestations  of  himself  to  the  souls  of  men, 
attended  by  such  energy  of  his  almighty  power,  as 
would  call  them  unfailingly  into  his  kingdom. 

The  question,  as  we  have  said,  is  not  a  question  of 
possible  01*  impossible,  but  a  question  of  fact,  as  to  the 
manner  in  which  God  does  actually  call  effectually 
sinners  into  his  kingdom — a  question  of  wisdom  and 
goodness  in  doing  what  is  best  in  the  best  manner. 

I  have  no  sympathy  for  the  opinion  that  it  depends 
on  sinners  whether  they  be  regenerated  or  not  in  the 
day  of  his  power— -or  that  God  does  all  he  can,  and 
leaves  the  event  of  submission  or  not  to  rebel  man— • 
and  that  sinners  make  themselves  to  differ,  and  are 
in  fact  the  self-determining  authors  of  their  own  re- 
generation. The  passages  quoted  to  prove  such  an 
assertion  are  misunderstood  and  perverted. 

The  texts — 'What  could  I  have  done  more  for  my 
vineyard  that  I  have  not  done  in  it,'  and  'he  could 
not  do  many  mighty  works  there,  because  of  their 
unbelief,'  and  other  kindred  passages,  do  not  teach 
that  God  is  ever  efficaciously  resisted  by  any  sinner 
whom  he  attempts  to  subdue,  or  that  there  is  any 
sinner  on  earth  so  stubborn  and  obstinate,  that  God 


210  REGENERATION. 

The  ordinary  method,  not  extreme  cases. 

could  not  reconcile  him  if  it  seemed  good  in  his  sight* 
The  limitation  is  of  God's  unerring  wisdom — and 
the  cannot  the  same  as  when  it  is  said  he  cannot 
deny  himself,  or  cannot  lie,  or  where  God  himself 
says — 'though  Moses  and  Samuel  stood  before  me,- 
yet  my  mind  could  not  be  towards  this  people.' 

The  question,  also,  has  respect  not  to  extreme 
cases,  but  to  the  ordinary  methods  of  his  sovereign 
power  in  saving  men;  and  here  the  Bible  and  Con- 
fession are  express,  that  regeneration  is  accomplish^ 
ed  by  the  word  and  Spirit  of  God. 

Most  assuredly  it  is  the  grammatical  import  and 
obvious  meaning,  and  no  doubt  the  true  intent  of  our 
Confession  and  Catechisms,  that  what  God  accom- 
plishes in  effectual  calling,  he  accomplishes  by  his 
word  and  Spirit — effectually  calls  'by  his  word  and 
SpirW  out  of  that  state  of  sin  and  death  in  which 
men  are  by  nature.  By  his  word  and  Spirit  enlight- 
ening their  minds  savingly  to  understand  the  things 
of  God.  By  his  icord  and  Spirit  taking  away  the 
heart  of  stone,  and  giving  a  heart  of  flesh.  By  his 
word  and  Spirit  and  almighty  power  renewing  their 
Tivills,  and  determining  them  to  that  which  is  good. 
By  his  word  and  Spirit  inviting  and  drawing  sinners 
to  Christ,  yet  so  as  they  come  most  freely,  being 
made  willing  by  his  grace.  The  Spirit  of  God  maketh 
the  reading  and  especially  the  preaching  of  the  word, 
an  effectual  mean  of  conviaeing  of  sin  and  convert- 
ing sinners,  and  building  them  up  in  holiness  and 
comfort  through  faith  unto  salvatiop.'  How  can 
that  b^  an  effectual  mean  of  conversion  which  does 


REGENERATION.  211 


The  'word'  embraces  all  God  has  revealed. 


nothing,  and  only  attends  the  display  of  God's  om- 
nipotence? 

Is  it  demanded  how  God  can  make  the  word  effec- 
tual by  his  Spirit  in  regeneration?  I  am  not  sure 
that  the  Bible,  or  the  creeds,  or  standard  writers, 
have  explained  exactly  how  the  Spirit  regenerates 
by  the  word,  or  that  I  shall  be  able  to  do  justice  to 
the  representations  which  they  have  made.  It  is 
evident,  however,  that  by  '  the  word'  and  '^the 
TRUTH,'  is  meant  the  whole  revelation  which  God  has 
made  to  man:  including  all  the  truths,  motives,  and 
ordinances  of  the  Bible,  and  all  the  illustrative  and 
corroborating  influence  of  his  providential  govern- 
ment; comprehending  the  being,  the  attributes,  the 
character,  and  the  eternal  counsel  and  law  of  God — 
the  fall  and  total  depravity  of  man — the  develop- 
ments of  the  Trinity,  and  plan  of  redemption  by 
Jesus  Christ;  including  his  divine  person,  mediation, 
atonement,  and  the  terms  upon  which  justification  and 
eternal  life  are  offered,  and  the  ordinances  and  means 
of  commending  these  overtures  of  mercy  to  the  con- 
sciences and  hearts  of  men;  including  also  the  Spirit, 
his  divine  person,  and  work  of  revelation,  illumina- 
tion, and  restraint,  awakening  and  convincing,  con- 
verting and  sanctifying  sinful  men,  to  make  them 
meet  for  heaven;  and  also  the  mingled  influence 
of  majesty  and  condescension,  justice  and  mercy, 
and  all  the  promises  and  threatenings,  and  hopes  and 
fears  attendant  upon  the  discriminations  of  grace  and 
justice — of  death,  and  judgment,  and  eternity,  associ- 


212  REGENERATION. 


The  thing  to  be  accomplished  in  regeneration. 

ated  with  heaven  and  hell,  according  to  the  characters 
formed  and  the  deeds  done  in  the  body. 

Now,  it  is  admitted  by  all  orthodox  creeds  and 
writers,  that  there  is  a  work  preparatory  and  conse- 
quential to  regeneration,  which  the  Spirit  does  ac- 
complish by  the  instrumentality  of  the  word.  It  is 
called  before  regeneration,  common  grace;  and  after, 
sanctification.  Nor  is  it  difficult  to  see  the  adaptation 
of  the  word  to  the  requisite  preparatory  work.  The 
thing  to  be  accomplished  in  regeneration  is  the  restor- 
ation of  the  vagrant  will  and  affections  from  the  crea- 
ture to  the  Creator — the  turninc^;  from  broken  cisterns 
to  God,  the  fountain  of  good.  To  accomplish  this, 
the  character  and  law  of  God  need  to  be  understood, 
the  sinner's  attention  arrested,  his  sensibilities  quick- 
ened, his  conscience  invigorated,  and  his  sins  set  in 
order  before  him  by  the  coming  of  the  commandment  j 
and  it  is  easy  to  see  how  the  word  is  powerful  in  its 
adaptation  after  regeneration,  to  sanctify  and  fit  believ- 
ers for  heaven.  The  psalmist  celebrates  it  as  'right, 
rejoicing  the  heart' — 'pure,  enlightening  the  eyes;' 
and  our  Saviour,  in  his  intercessory  prayer,  for  his 
disciples  and  people  in  all  ages,  prays, '  sanctify  them 
tlirough  thy  truth,  thy  word  is  truth.' 

The  only  question  is,  whether  God,  by  his  Spirit, 
makes  the  word  as  effectual  to  regenerate,  as  he  does 
to  prepare  the  way,  and  to  sanctify  after  regenera- 
tion. And  is  it  a  thing  intuitively  impossible  that 
God,  according  to  the  language  of  our  Confession 
and  catechisms,  should  be  '  pleased,  in  his  appointed 
and  accepted  time, effectually  to  call  the  predestinated 


REGENERATION.  .  213 


Effectual  calling  by  the  word  and  Spirit. 


by  his  word  and  Spirit,  out  of  a  state  of  sin  and  death, 
in  which  they  are  by  nature,  to  grace  and  salvation 
by  Jesus  Christ;  by  his  word  and  Spirit,  enlightening 
their  minds  spiritually  and  savingly,  to  understand  the 
things  of  God,  taking  away  their  heart  of  stone,  and 
giving  unto  them  a  heart  of  flesh;  renewing  their 
wills,  and  by  his  almighty  power  determining  to  that 
which  is  good,  and  effectually  drawing  them  to 
Christ,  yet  so  as  they  come  freely,  being  made  willing 
by  his  grace;  in  his  accepted  time,  inviting  and  draw- 
ing them  to  Christ  by  his  word  and  Spirit.  The  Spirit 
of  God  making  the  reading,  but  especially  the  preach- 
ing of  the  word  an  effectual  mean  of  convincing  and 
converting  sinners,  and  of  building  them  up  in  holi- 
ness and  comfort,  through  faith  unto  salvation?'  Our 
standards,  you  perceive,  are  unequivocal  in  the  de- 
claration, that  regeneration  itself,  as  well  as  conviction 
and  sanctification,  is  accomplished  by  the  word  and 
Spirit  of  God.  It  ascribes  expressly  the  same  instru- 
mentality to  the  word,  in  regeneration,  which  it  as- 
cribes to  it  in  conviction  and  sanctification.  This,  so 
far  as  I  can  judge,  has  been  the  prevalent  doctrine  of 
the  church  of  God,  in  every  age.  Indeed  it  was  one 
of  the  points  of  earnest  controversy  between  Papist 
and  Protestant,  the  one  mistifying  about  the  internal 
word,  as  a  pretext  for  the  sequestration  of  the  Bible, 
the  other  asserting  its  instrumentality.  Should  the 
question  be  pressed,  how  the  Spirit  makes  the  word 
effectual  in  regeneration,  the  answer  is: 

Not  by  the  truth  and  motives  of  the  word,  as  God 
employs  natural  causes  to  produce  their  effects.     It 

19 


214  REGENERATION. 


Effectual  calling  by  the  word  and  Spirit. 


is  said  expressly  in  our  Confession,  that  he  does  not 
force  the  will,  or  determine  it  to  good  by  any  abso- 
lute necessity  of  nature,  but  that  he  doth  persuade 
and  enable  men  to  embrace  Jesus  Christ  freely  of- 
fered to  them  in  the  Gospel. 

The  mind  is  not  a  material  substance,  nor  the 
means  of  its  unperverted  action  natural  causes;  and 
to  clothe  the  word,  in  the  hand  of  the  Spirit,  with 
the  power  of  a  natural  cause,  from  imagery  bor- 
rowed from  the  natural  world,  is  to  materialize  both 
the  word  and  the  soul.  The  heart  is  not  literally  a 
stone,  nor  the  word  of  God  a  sword,  or  fire,  or 
hammer,  to  break,  or  melt  the  stony  heart.  The 
meaning  is  that  the  Spirit  somehow,  by  the  word, 
both  wounds  and  heals  the  soul,  not  as  he  would 
wound  the  body  by  a  spear,  and  heal  it  by  surgical 
application;  but  he  does  it  by  an  instrumentality 
which  may  be  fitly  represented  by  such  metaphori- 
cal analogies. 

The  Bible  contains  precisely  that  balanced  exhibi- 
tion of  God — of  the  riches  of  his  goodness — his  majes- 
ty and  his  condescension — his  love  and  his  justice — 
his  mercy,  and  his  inexorable  decision  to  punish  the 
incorrigible — his  long  suffering  and  sudden  vengeance 
— and  so  exhibits  the  glorious  and  dreadful  discrimi- 
nations of  his  justice  and  his  grace,  as  makes  it  as 
perfect  in  its  adaptation  when  brought  home  to  the 
mind  and  heart  to  induce  submission,  as  the  com- 
mandment when  commended  by  the  Spirit,  is  to 
produce  conviction,  or  the  same  exhibition  made  real 
by  divine  illumination  to  sanctify  the  believer;  but 


REGENERATION.  2l5 


Effectual  calling  by  the  word  and  Spirit. 


sin  h'as  darkened  the  mind,  and  the  god  of  this  world, 
and  the  sinner's  own  deceitful  heart  of  enmity  keeps 
out  this  exhibition  as  a  matter  of  living  reality — so  that 
the  natural  man  understandeth  not  by  his  own  or  any 
human  endeavor  the  things  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 
But  as  the  Spirit  commends  the  law  to  the  sinner's 
conscience  in  conviction  of  sin  as  man  cannot,  and  sanc- 
tifies by  the  truth  his  regenerated  people,  so  '  all  those 
whom  God  hath  predestinated  unto  life,  and  those 
only,  he  is  pleased,  in  his  appointed  and  accepted 
time,  effectually  to  call,  by  his  word  and  Spirit,  out 
of  that  state  of  sin  and  death,  in  which  they  are  by 
nature,  to  grace  and  salvation  by  Jesus  Christ;  en- 
lightening their  minds  spiritually  and  savingly,  to  un- 
derstand the  things  of  God,  taking  away  their  heart 
of  stone,  and  giving  unto  them  a  heart  of  flesh;  re- 
newing their  wills,  and  by  his  almighty  power  deter- 
mining them  to  that  which  is  good;  and  effectually 
drawing  them  to  Jesus  Christ;  yet  so  as  they  come 
most  freely,  being  made  willing  by  his  grace.'  It  is 
all  dark  to  the  sinner,  and  mournful,  and  terrible,  till 
the  Spirit  makes  the  gospel  a  reality  instinct  with  life. 
Nor  is  it  the  letter — the  simple  naked  truth  as  a 
mere  matter  of  intellectual  perception,  which  be- 
comes effectual  even  in  the  hand  of  God.  Facts  and 
propositions  do  not  contain  and  exhibit  the  whole 
truth  contained  in  the  Bible.  It  is  a  depository  of  di- 
vine feeling.  From  which  flows  the  copious  tide 
of  God's  love  and  hatred — his  compassion  and  his 
justice — his  mercy  and  his  wrath — the  meltings  of 
his  heart — the  terrors  of  his  power,  and  the  energy 


216  REGENERATION. 


Effectual  calling  by  the  word  and  Spirit. 


of  his  will.  Al]  the  reality  of  divine  feeling  is  ex- 
pressed in  the  Bible;  but  the  natural  man  understand- 
eth  it  not — he  reads  the  letter  only  which  killeth.  But 
it  is  the  Spirit  which  giveth  life — '  the  words  that 
I  speak  unto  you  they  are  spirit  and  they  are  life, 
manifesting  the  truth  and  reality  of  divine  feeling  to 
the  soul.  While  the  sinner  reads  with  darkened  mind 
the  sacred  page,  the  Spirit  makes  it  luminous,  and 
quick,  and  powerful — it  is  as  if  written  upon  transpa- 
rencies with  invisible  ink — unseen  andunfelt,  till  the 
illumination  of  the  Spirit  throws  it  out  in  letters  of  fire. 

Then  the  heavens  illuminated  declare  the  glory  of 
God — and  the  inspired  page  shines  with  overpower- 
ing splendor.  Both  these  united  manifestations  of 
the  works  and  word  of  God,  are  celebrated  in  the 
19th  Psalm. 

^The  heavens  declare  the  glory  of  God,  and  the 
firmament  sheweth  his  handy-work.  Day  unto  day 
uttereth  speech,  and  night  unto  night  sheweth  know- 
ledge. There  is  no  speech  nor  language  where  their 
voice  is  not  heard.  Their  line  is  gone  out  through 
all  the  earth,  and  their  words  to  the  end  of  the  world. 
In  them  hath  he  set  a  tabernacle  for  the  sun;  which 
is  as  a  bridegroom  coming  out  of  his  chamber,  and 
rejoiceth  as  a  strong  man  to  run  a  race.  His  going 
forth  is  from  the  end  of  the  heaven,  and  his  circuit 
unto  the  ends  of  it:  and  there  is  nothing  hid  from  the 
heat  thereof.  The  law  of  the  Lord  is  perfect,  con- 
verting the  soul:  the  testimony  of  the  Lord  is  sure, 
making  wise  the  simple:  the  statutes  of  the  Lord  are 
right,  rejoicing  the  heart:  the  commandment  of  the 
Lord  is  pure,  enlightening  the  eyes.' 


REGENERATION.  217 


Instrumentality  of  the  word — Augustin. 


In  accordance  with  these  views  of  the  proper  in- 
strumentality of  the  word  in  regeneration,  is  the  tes- 
timony of  Augustin,  as  quoted  by  Knapp. 

'With  respect  to  the  manner  in  which  saving 
grace  operates,  Augustin  believed,  that  in  the  case 
of  those  who  enjoy  revelation,  grace  commonly  acts 
by  means  of  the  w^ord,  or  the  divine  doctrine,  but 
sometimes  directly;  because  God  is  not  confined  to 
the  use  of  means.  On  this  point  there  was  great 
logomachy.'     Knapp's  Theology^  vol.  11.  p.  457. 

To  the  same  purpose  is  the  exposition  by  Calvin, 
of  Hebrews  iv.  12. — ''For  the  word  of  God  is  quick, 
and  powerful,  and  sharper  than  any  two-edged  sword, 
piercing  even  to  the  dividing  asunder  of  soul  and  spirit, 
and  of  the  joints  and  marrow,  and  is  a  discerner  of  the 
thoughts  and  intents  of  the  heart,'' 

'It  is  to  be  observed,  that  the  apostle  is  here 
speaking  of  the  word  of  God  which  is  brought  to  us 
by  the  ministry  of  men.  For  these  imaginations  are 
silly  and  even  pernicious,  to  wit,  that  the  internal 
word  indeed  is  efficacious,  but  that  the  word  which 
proceeds  from  the  mouth  of  man  is  dead  and  destitute 
of  all  effect.  I  confess,  truly,  that  its  efficacy  does 
not  proceed  from  the  tongue  of  man,  nor  reside  in 
the  word  itself,  but  that  it  is  owing  entirely  to  the 
Holy  Spirit;  nevertheless  this  is  no  objection  to  the 
idea  that  the  Spirit  puts  forth  his  power  in  the  preach- 
ed word.  For  God,  since  he  does  not  speak  by  him- 
self, but  by  men,  sedulously  insists  on  this,  lest  his 
doctrine  should  be  received  contemptuously,  because 
men  are  its  ministers.     Thus  Paul,  when  he  calls  the 

19* 


218  REGENERATION. 

Instrumentality  of  the  word — Calvin. 

gospel  the  power  of  God,  (Rom.  i.  16.,)  purposely 
dignifies  his  preaching  with  this  title,  because  he  saw 
that  it  had  been  slandered  by  some  and  despised  by 
others.  Moreover,  when  he  calls  the  word  livings 
its  relation  to  men  is  to  be  understood,  as  appears 
more  clearly  in  the  second  epithet;  for  he  shows 
what  this  life  is,  when  he  then  calls  it  efficacious:  for 
it  is  the  design  of  the  apostle  to  show  what  the  use 
of  the  word  is  in  respect  to  us.'  The  words  render- 
ed living  and  efficacious  in  the  above  paragraph,  are 
in  the  English  version  translated  quick  and  powerful. 

The  following  is  the  comment  of  Calvin  on  Ro- 
mans x.  17. — 'So  then  faith  cometh  by  hearings  and 
hearing  by  the  word  of  God, ' 

'This  is  a  remarkable  passage  concerning  the  effi- 
cacy of  preaching,  since  it  testifies  that  faith  proceeds 
from  it.  He  indeed  confessed  just  before,  that  it  ac- 
complished no  good  by  itself:  but  where  it  pleases 
the  Lord  to  work,  this  is  the  instrument  of  his  power. 
God  by  the  voice  of  man  acts  efficaciously,  and  by  his 
ministry  creates  faith  in  us.  In  this  manner  that 
Papal  phantasm  of  implicit  faith,  which  seperates 
faith  from  the  word,  falls  to  the  ground.' 

The  Synod  of  Dort  is  unequivocal  also  in  the  doc- 
trine of  effectual  calling  by  the  word  and  Spirit. 

'What,  therefore,  neither  the  light  of  nature  nor 
the  law  could  do,  that  God  performs  by  the  power  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  through  the  word,  or  the  ministry 
of  reconciliation;  which  is  the  gospel  concerning  the 
Messiah,  by  which  it  hath  pleased  God  to  save  be- 
lievers, as  well  under  the  Old  as  under  the  New  Tes- 
tament.'    Scotfs  Synod  of  Dort^  p.  137. 


REGENERATION.  219 


Instrumentality  of  the  word — Synod  of  Dort. 

'  But  in  like  manner,  as  by  the  fall  man  does  not 
cease  to  be  man,  endowed  with  intellect  and  will, 
neither  hath  sin,  which  has  pervaded  the  whole  hu- 
man race,  taken  away  the  nature  of  the  human 
species,  but  it  hath  depraved  and  spiritually  stained 
it;  so  even  this  divine  grace  of  regeneration  does 
not  act  upon  men  like  stocks  and  trees,  nor  take 
away  the  proprieties  (or  properties,  pi^opiHetates) 
of  his  will,  or  violently  compel  it  while  unwilling; 
but  it  spiritually  quickens,  (or  vivifies,)  heals,  cor- 
rects, and  sweetly,  and  at  the  same  time,  powerfully 
inclines  it:  so  that  whereas  before  it  was  wholly  gov- 
erned by  the  rebellion  and  resistance  of  the  flesh, 
now,  prompt  and  sincere  obedience  of  the  Spirit 
may  begin  to  reign.'     Ibid.  p.  141. 

'  But  in  the  same  manner  as  the  omnipotent  opera- 
tion of  God,  whereby  he  produces  and  supports  our 
natural  life,  doth  not  exclude,  but  require  the  use  of 
rneans,  by  which  God  in  his  infinite  wisdom  and 
goodness  sees  fit  to  exercise  this  his  power:  so  this 
fore-mentioned  supernatural  power  of  God  by  which 
he  regenerates  us,  in  no  wise  excludes,  or  sets  aside 
the  use  of  the  gospel,  which  the  most  wise  God  hath 
ordained  as  the  seed  of  regeneration  and  the  food  of 
the  soul.  Wherefore,  as  the  apostles,  and  those 
teachers  who  followed  them,  have  piously  instructed 
the  people,  concerning  this  grace  of  God,  in  order  to 
his  glory  and  to  the  keeping  down  of  all  pride;  in  the 
mean  time  neither  have  they  neglected  (being  admon- 
ished by  the  holy  gospel)  to  keep  them  under  the 
exercise  of  the  word,  the  sacraments,  and  discipline: 


220  REGENERATION. 


Instrumentality  of  the  word — Witsius. 

SO  then,  be  it  far  from  us,  that  teachers  or  learners  in 
the  church  should  presume  to  tempt  God,  by  separa- 
ting those  things,  which  God,  of  his  own  good  plea- 
sure, would  have  most  closely  united  together.  For 
grace  is  conferred  through  admonitions,  and  the  more 
promptly  we  do  our  duty,  the  more  illustrious  the 
benefit  of  God,  who  worketh  in  us,  is  wont  to  be, 
and  the  most  rightly  doth  his  work  proceed.  To 
whom  alone,  all  the  glory,  both  of  the  means  and 
their  beneficial  fruits  and  efficacy,  is  due  for  everlast- 
ing.    Amen.'     Ibid,  p,  142. 

Witsius — a  standard  writer  in  the  church,  says — 
*  Regeneration  is  that  supernatural  act  of  God  where- 
by a  new  and  divine  life  is  infused  into  the  elect — 
persons  spiritually  dead — and  that  from  the  incorrup- 
tible seed  of  the  word  of  God  made  fruitful  by  the 
infinite  power  of  the  Spirit.' 

Witherspoon — one  of  the  best  standard  writers  in 
our  church,  and  whose  treatise  on  regeneration  is 
the  best  written  and  the  most  judicious,  scriptural, 
copious,  accurate,  and  experimental  dissertation 
upon  that  subject  in  the  English  language,  speak- 
ing of  the  nature  of  regeneration,  says — '  As,  there- 
fore, the  change  is  properly  of  a  moral  or  spiritual 
nature,  it  seems  to  me  properly  and  directly  to 
consist  in  these  two  things,  1.  That  our  supreme 
and  chief  end  be  to  serve  and  glorify  God,  and  that 
every  other  aim  be  subordinate  to  this.  2.  That  the 
soul  rest  in  God  as  its  chief  happiness,  and  habitually 
prefer  his  favor  to  every  other  enjoyment.'     p.  137. 

The  following  passages  imply  the  associated  influ-^ 
ence  of  means: 


REGENERATION.  221 


Instrumentality  of  the  word — Witherspoon, 


'The  deplorable,  and  naturally  helpless  state  of 
sinners,  doth  not  hinder  exhortations  to  them  in 
scripture;  and  therefore,  takes  not  away  their  obli- 
gation to  duty.  See  an  address,  where  the  strongest 
metaphors  are  retained,  the  exhortation  given  in  these 
very  terms,  and  the  foundation  of  the  duty  plainly 
pointed  out.  "  Wherefore  he  saith,  awake  thou  that 
sleepest,  and  arise  from  the  dead,  and  Christ  shall 
give  thee  light."  From  which  it  is  very  plain,  that 
the  moral  inability  under  which  sinners  now  lie,  as  a 
consequence  of  the  fall,  is  not  of  such  a  nature  as  to 
take  away  the  guilt  of  sin,  the  propriety  of  exhorta- 
tions to  duty,  or  the  necessity  of  endeavors  after 
recovery. 

'But  what  shall  we  say?  Alas!  the  very  subject 
we  are  now  speaking  of,  aftbrds  a  new  proof  of  the 
blindness,  prejudice,  and  obstinacy  of  sinners.  They 
are  self-condemned;  for  they  do  not  act  the  same 
part  in  similar  cases.  The  affairs  of  the  present  life 
are  not  managed  in  so  preposterous  a  manner.  He 
that  ploughs  his  ground,  and  throws  in  his  seed,  can- 
not so  much  as  unite  one  grain  to  the  clod;  nay,  he  is 
not  able  to  conceive  how  it  is  done.  He  cannot 
carry  on,  nay,  he  cannot  so  much  as  begin  one  single 
step  of  this  wonderful  process  toward  the  subsequent 
crop;  the  mortification  of  the  seed,  the  resurrection 
of  the  blade,  and  gradual  increase,  till  it  come  to  per- 
fect maturity.  Is  it,  therefore,  reasonable,  that  he 
should  say,  I  for  my  part  can  do  nothing.  It  is,  first 
and  last,  an  effect  of  divine  power  and  energy.  And 
God  can  as  easily  raise  a  crop  without  sowing  as 


REGENERATION. 


Instrumentality  of  the  word — Owen. 


with  it,  in  a  single  instant,  and  in  any  place,  as  in  a 
long  time,  by  the  mutual  influence  of  soil  and  season; 
I  will  therefore  spare  myself  the  hardship  of  toil  and 
labor,  and  wait  with  patience,  till  I  see  what  he  will 
be  pleased  to  send.  Would  this  be  madness?  Would 
it  be  universally  reputed  so?  And  would  it  not  be 
equal  madness  to  turn  the  grace  of  God  into  licen- 
tiousness? Believe  it,  the  warning  is  equally  rea- 
sonable and  equally  necessary,  in  spiritual  as  in  tem- 
porary things.'     pp.  134, 135. 

The  authority  of  Owen  is  among  the  best  of  ortho- 
dox authorities.     His  language  is  as  follows: 

'  We  grant  that  in  the  work  of  regeneration,  the 
Holy  Spirit  towards  those  that  are  adult,  doth  make 
use  of  the  word,  both  the  law  and  the  gospel,  and 
the  ministry  of  the  church,  in  the  dispensation  of  it, 
as  the  ordinary  means  thereof;  yea,  this  is  ordinarily 
the  whole  external  means  that  is  made  use  of  in  this 
work,  and  an  efficacy  proper  unto  it,  it  is  accom- 
panied withal.' 

*  The  power  which  the  Holy  Ghost  puts  forth  in 
our  regeneration,  is  such  in  its  acting  or  exercise,  as 
our  minds,  wills,  and  affections,  are  suited  to  be 
wrought  upon,  and  to  be  affected  by  it,  according  to 
their  natures,  and  natural  operations.  '*  Turn  thou 
me,  and  I  shall  be  turned;  draw  me,  and  I  shall  ran 
after  thee."  He  doth  neither  act  in  them  any  other- 
wise than  they  themselves  are  meet  to  be  moved  and 
move,  to  be  acted  and  act,  according  to  their  own 
nature,  power,  and  ability.  He  draws  us  with  "  the 
cords  of  a  man."     And  the  work  itself  is  expressed  by 


REGENERATION.  223 


Instrumentality  of  the  word — Owen. 


persuading,  "  God  persuade  Japhet;"  and  alluring,  "  I 
will  allure  her  into  the  wilderness  and  speak  com- 
fortably:" for  as  it  is  certainly  effectual,  so  it  carries 
no  more  repugnancy  unto  our  faculties,  than  a  pre- 
valent persuasion  doth.  So  that  he  doth  not,  in  our 
regeneration,  possess  the  mind  with  any  enthusiasti- 
cal  impressions;  nor  acteth  absolutely  upon  us  as  he 
did  in  extraordinary  prophetical  inspirations  of  old, 
where   the  minds  and  organs  of  the  bodies  of  men 

WERE  MERELY  PASSIVE  INSTRUMENTS,  MOVED  BY  HIM 
ABOVE  THEIR  OWN  NATURAL  CAPACITY  AND  ACTIVITY,  NOT 
ONLY  AS  TO  THE  PRINCIPLE  OF  WORKING,  BUT  AS  TO  THE 
MANNER  OF  OPERATION. 

'He  therefore  offers  no  violence  or  compulsion 
unto  the  will.  This  that  faculty  is  not  naturally 
capable  to  give  admission  unto.  If  it  be  compelled, 
it  is  destroyed.'     Oweii^s  Works,  vol.  2,  p.  371, 

Howe  is  equally  express  on  this  subject,  he 
says — 'And  whereas,  therefore,  in  this  work  there 
is  a  communication  and  participation  of  the  divine 
nature,  this  is  signified  to  be  his  divine  power.  If  you 
look  to  2  Peter  i.  verses  3,  4,  compared,  "According 
as  his  divine  power  hath  given  us  all  things  appertain- 
ing to  life  and  godliness,  through  the  knowledge  of 
him  that  hath  called  us  to  glory  and  virtue;  whereby 
are  given  to  us  exceeding  great  and  precious  pro- 
mises; that  by  these  you  might  be  partakers  of  the 
divine  nature."  Here  is  a  divine  nature  to  be  com- 
municated and  imparted  in  this  great  and  glorious 
work.  How  is  it  to  be  communicated?  It  is  true  it 
must  be  by  apt  and  suitable  means;  to  wit,  by  the 


224  REGENERATION. 


Instrumentality  of  the  word — Howe. 


great  and  precious  promises  given  us  in  the  gospel. 
But  it  must  be  by  the  exertion  too  of  a  divine  power. 
Though  God  do  work  suitably  to  an  intelligent  na- 
ture when  he  works  upon  such  subjects,  yet  he  works 
also  suitably  to  himself,  "according  as  his  divine  pow- 
er hath  given  us  all  things  pertaining  to  life  and  god- 
liness," or  to  the  godly  life;  in  order  to  the  ingenera- 
ting  the  godly  life  his  divine  power  hath  given  us  by 
the  exceeding  great  and  precious  promises,  a  divine 
nature.  The  instrumentality  and  subserviency  of 
these  "exceeding  great  and  precious  promises,"  is 
greatly  to  be  considered,  God  working  herein  suita- 
bly to  the  nature  of  an  intelligent  subject.  Here  is 
a  change  to  be  wrought  in  his  nature — a  nature  that 
is  corrupt,  depraved,  averse  from  God,  alienated  from 
the  divine  life;  this  nature  is  now  to  be  attempered 
to  God,  made  suitable  to  him,  made  prepense  and  in- 
clined towards  him.  This  might  be  done,  it  is  true, 
by  an  immediate  exertion  of  almighty  power,  without 
any  more  ado.  But  God  will  work  upon  men  suita- 
bly to  the  nature  of  man.  And  what  course  doth  he 
therefore  take?  He  gives  "exceeding  great  and  pre- 
cious promises,"  and  in  them  he  declares  his  own 
good  will,  that  he  might  win  theirs.  In  order  to  the 
ingenerating  grace  in  them,  he  reveals  grace  to  them 
by  these  great  and  precious  promises.  And  what  is 
grace  in  us?  Truly  grace  in  us  is  goodwill  towards 
God,  or  good  nature  towards  God;  which  can  never 
be  without  a  transformation  of  our  vicious,  corrupt 
nature.  It  will  never  incline  towards  God,  or  be 
prepense  towards  God,  till  he  make  it  so  by  a  trans- 


REGENERATION.  225 


Instrumentality  of  the  word — Howe. 


forming  power.  But  how  doth  he  make  it  so?  By- 
discovering  his  kindness  and  goodness  to  them  in 
"exceeding  great  and  precious  promises,"  satisfying 
and  persuading  their  hearts;  I  mean  nothing  but  kind- 
ness towards  you,  why  should  you  be  unkind  towards 
me?  I  am  full  of  goodwill  towards  you,  will  you  re- 
quite it  with  perpetual  illwill,  and  everlasting  enmity 
towards  me  ?  Thus  the  "  exceeding  great  and  precious 
promises"  are  insturments  to  the  communicating  a 
divine  nature  to  us,  though  that  divine  nature  be 
ingenerated  by  a  MIGHTY  POWER.  God  doth  work 
at  the  rate  of  omnipotency  in  the  matter,  by  the  ex- 
ertion of  almighty  power;  but  yet  suitably  to  our  na- 
ture, so  as  to  express  his  mind,  and  kind  design,  and 
goodwill,  by  the  exceeding  great  and  precious  prom- 
ises contained  in  the  gospel. 

'And  if  it  were  not  so,  he  might  as  well  make  use 
of  any  other  means  as  the  gospel,  to  work  upon  souls 
by.     But  the  gospel  is  the  word  of  his  grace.' 

There  would  seem  to  be  the  same  evidence  of  in 
strumental  action  of  the  word  as  employed  by  the 
Spirit,  which  attends  and  evidences  the  direct  effica- 
cy of  natural  causes.  How  do  we  learn  the  existence 
and  power  of  natural  causes?  We  see  not  power 
itself,  and  infer  it  only  from  the  uniformity  with  which 
the  effect  follows  the  the  application  of  the  cause. 
It  never  exists  without  it,  and  always  attends  its 
application.  But  the  same  evidence  of  instrumental 
influence  attends  the  ministration  of  the  word  of  God. 
As  a  general  fact,  no  spiritual  life  commences  in  its 
absence,  and  always  in  some  form  of  association  with 
20 


226  REGENERATION. 


Manner  of  operation  unrevealed. 


its  presence — and  whatever  may  be  the  theory  of 
ministers  on  the  subject,  they  all  pray  at  the  close 
of  their  sermons,  that  God  would  make  his  word 
effectual — clothe  it  with  power — make  it  quick  and 
powerful.  The  fire  and  the  hammer  to  break,  and 
melt,  and  purify  the  heart. 

Is  the  question  still  repeated,  how  does  God  make 
the  word  effectual  in  regeneration  by  his  Spirit? 
That  question  belongs  not  to  me,  but  to  the  Lord  of 
the  Bible;  and  has  been  long  since  asked  of  him,  and 
answered  by  him.  Nicodemus  saith  unto  him, '  How 
can  these  things  be?'  And  the  answer  was,  ^The 
wind  bloweth  where  it  listeth,  and  thou  hearest  the  sound 
thereof^  hut  canst  not  tell  whence  it  cometh^  and  whither 
it  goeth  :  so  is  evei^y  one  that  is  horn  of  the  Spirit."^ 

Does  it  seem  to  any  to  be  impossible  that  God 
should  savingly  enlighten  by  his  word  and  Spirit?  and 
make  '  the  reading  and  especially  the  preaching  of  his 
word,  an  effectual  mean  of  conviction  and  conver- 
sion?' It  should  be  remembered,  that  many  thingsare 
possible  with  God,  which  seem  impossible  to  men. 
That  our  philosophy  is  not  the  counsel  of  his  will,  ac- 
cording to  which  he  worketh  all  things — nor  our  ca- 
pacity of  comprehension  the  limit  of  God's  almighty 
power.  Where  the  lamp  of  our  reason  goes  out,  and 
far  beyond  what  eye  hath  seen,  or  heart  conceived — 
he  holds  on  his  eternal  way  in  the  great  deep,  and 
amid  clouds  and  darkness,  impenetrable  to  created 
mind.  But  in  this  unexplored  and  deep  darkness — that 
he  does  a  thing  is  the  highest  possible  evidence  of  its 
rectitude — and  that  he  has  said  a  thing,  the  highest 


REGENERATION.  227 


Why  Divine  power  necessary. 


possible  evidence  of  its  truth.  On  the  ground,  then, 
of  divine  declaration  we  rest  our  confidence,  tliat 
God  can  make  his  word  and  Spirit  an  effectual  means 
of  the  conviction  and  conversion  of  sinners. 

IV.  Why  is  the  power  of  God  necessary  to  regen- 
eration? why  may  not  argument  and  motive  prevail 
on  men  to  turn  to  God? 

The  power  of  God  is  not  necessary  because  the 
will  of  man  is  forced,  or  by  any  absolute  necessity  of 
nature  determined  to  evil.     But  it  is  necessary,  be- 
cause the  bias  to  actual  sin  occasioned  by  the  fall  is 
such,  as  eventuates  in  a  perverse  decision  of  the  will 
^nd  affections,  in  respect  to  the  chief  good,  inducing 
the  preference  of  the  creature  to  the  Creator;  and 
because,  when  this  perverse  decision  is  once  made, 
the  heart  is  fully  set  and  incorrigible  to  all  motive, 
and  immutable  in  its  way — to  which  is  to  be  added, 
the  power  of  habit  resulting  from  the  repetition  of 
evil  desire,  and  purpose,  and  gratification;  and  though 
altogether,    they  force  not  the  will,  nor  decide  it 
wrong  by  an  absolute  necessity  of  nature,  or  cancel 
obligation,  or  afford  excuse;   they  do,  nevertheless, 
render  all  means  and  efforts  abortive,  which  are  not 
made  effectual  by  the  special  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit. 

Durinir  this  aberration  of  the  will  and  affections 
from  God,  there  is  nothing  remaining  to  man  which, 
by  any  possible  culture,  can  become  religion. 

No  emotions  of  the  sublime,  in  view  of  the  majesty 
of  God,  which  become  adoration:  no  admiration  of 
the  adaptation  of  his  character  and  laws  to  good  re- 


228  REGENERATION. 


No  principle  of  virtue  in  fallen  man. 


suits,  or  of  the  gospel  to  sustain  law  and  recover  the 
lost,  which  produce  holy  complacency:  no  delicacy 
of  taste,  or  tenderness  of  sensibility,  which  will  ex- 
pand and  amplify  into  love:  no  pleasure  in  doing  good 
rather  than  evil,  which,  by  culture,  can  be  made 
benevolence,  embracing  God  with  supreme,  and 
his  subjects  with  impartial  good  will:  no  patri- 
otism which  can  be  kindled  into  piety;  and  none 
of  the  natural  affections  which  unite  in  tender 
ties  the  family,  which  become  cords  of  love  to 
draw  back  the  heart  from  the  creature  to  God:  no 
amiableness  and  good  nature,  which  inspire  evan- 
gelical self-denial  for  Christ's  sake;  and  no  piety 
which  so  extends  beyond  the  sphere  of  the  senses  as 
to  feel  for  the  sorrows  of  the  soul  and  the  woes  of 
eternity:  no  power  of  intellect  or  urgency  of  con- 
science, or  fear  of  punishment,  as  ever  in  the  order 
of  cause  and  effect  eventuate  in  godly  sorrow:  nor 
is  there  any  power  of  institutions  or  of  doctrine, 
or  argument  or  eloquence,  which  ever  enlightens 
savingly,  the  dark  mind,  or  wakes  up  the  pulse  of 
life  in  the  dead  soul.  As  I  have  said  in  my  sermon 
on  the  native  character  of  man,  the  discourse  in 
which  the  chief  evidence  of  my  Pelagianism  is  sup- 
posed to  be  contained, — 'AH  which  is  admirable  in 
intellect,  or  monitory  in  conscience,  or  compre- 
hensive in  knowledge,  or  refined  in  taste,  or  deli- 
cate in  sensibility,  or  powerful  in  natural  affection, 
may  be  found  in  man  as  the  result  of  constitution,  or 
the  effect  of  intellectual  and  moral  culture:  but  reli- 
gion is  not  found,  except  as  the  result  of  a  special 


REGENERATION.  229 

Thoughts  on  creeds. 

divine  interposition.  The  temple  is  beautiful,  but  it 
is  a  temple  in  ruins; — the  divinity  is  departed,  and 
the  fire  on  the  altar  is  extinct.' 

It  follows,  therefore,  that  except  a  man  be  born 
again — be  born  from  above — be  born  of  the  Spirit — 
be  born  of  God,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God. 


A  few  thoughts  upon  creeds  in  general,  and  our 
own  Confession  in  particular,  and  I  have  done. 

Creeds,  it  is  well  known,  originated  early,  in  the 
assaults  of  error  upon  fundamental  truth,  and  were 
brought  progressively,  as  collision  and  discrimination 
elicited  the  truth,  into  the  well  defined  systems  which 
we  now  possess. 

The  design  was,  and  ever  has  been,  to  repel  the 
innovations  of  fundamental  error,  and  unite  the  faith- 
ful in  Christ  Jesus  in  fellowship  and  action,  for  the 
extension  of  his  kingdom  upon  earth. 

The  right  of  men  to  associate  for  the  maintenance 
and  propagation  of  truth  and  worship  in  accordance 
with  their  understanding  of  the  Bible,  expressed  in 
epitomised  form,  cannot  be  denied.  It  defrauds  none 
of  their  rights  of  conscience  to  worship  without 
creeds,  who  choose  to  do  so,  while  it  is  essential  to 
the  liberty  of  conscience  of  those  who  desire  to  be 
associated  in  this  manner;  of  which  none  will  be 
likely  to  complain,  but  those  who  desire  to  make 
their  own  conscience  the  rule  of  other  men's  judg- 
ments. The  efficacy  of  creeds  to  maintain  the 
20* 


230  REGENERATION. 


Utility  of  creeds. 


purity  of  truth  and  the  unity  of  the  church,  has  been 
great.  They  have  not,  indeed,  been  omnipotent,  in 
repelling  the  encroachments  of  error,  or  securing  en- 
tirely the  unity  of  the  church:  but  it  follows  not  from 
this,  that  they  have  been  powerless.  The  question  is 
not,  how  much  they  have  failed  to  accomplish,  but 
how^  much  they  have  done,  and  what  had  been  the 
condition  of  the  church,  without  these  memorials  of 
anterior  discussions  and  attainments.  It  must  have 
been  to  theology  like  the  blotting  out  of  civilization 
by  the  northern  barbarians,  or  the  oblivion  of  all  ex- 
perience with  each  generation,  consigning  the  world 
in  religion  and  science  to  the  impotency  of  an  ever- 
lasting infancy. 

Creeds  have  indeed  been  the  occasion  of  contro- 
versy: but  we  might  as  well  deplore  the  action  of  the 
atmosphere,  because  thunder-storms  and  tornadoes 
sometimes  attend  it.  To  the  discussions  of  the  refor- 
mation, we  owe  the  emancipation  of  the  world — the 
rights  of  free  enquiry — the  rights  of  conscience — the 
supreme  authority  of  the  Bible — the  principles  of  its 
exposition,  and  the  great  principles  of  civil  and  reli- 
gious liberty. 

They  were  the  battle  begun — the  conflict  of  mind 
with  brute  force — which  will  not  terminate  till  the 
world  is  free.  Our  own  independence  is  the  fruit 
of  it,  and  the  overturnings  which  shake  the  world, 
and  w^ill  shake  it  till  knowledge  and  science  cover  the 
earth,  are  the  consummation  of  that  great  conflict. 

It  was  the  creeds  of  the  reformation,  also,  and  the 
zeal  of  holy  men  for  them,  which  held  Protestant  na- 
tions together  against  the  combinations  of  despotic 


REGENERATION.  231 


Utility  of  creeds. 


force,  and  thus  secured  the  permanent  action  of  the 
great  principles  which  were  developed;  and  they 
have  stood  as  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in  the  bond  of 
peace,  to  break  the  force  of  temptation  to  apostacy, 
to  strengthen  in  a  period  of  declension  the  things  that 
remain,  and  to  become  rallying  points  and  means  of 
a  spiritual  restoration.  The  thirty-nine  articles  have 
held  the  Episcopal  church  through  all  her  periods  of 
declension,  adversity,  and  change;  and  though  once 
almost  a  dead  letter,  are  now  powerfully  instrumen- 
tal in  her  glorious  evangelical  resurrection.  So  the 
standards  of  Scotland,  and  Geneva,  and  Germany, 
held  their  several  churches  like  so  many  anchors, 
while  the  enemy  came  in  like  a  flood,  but  are  now 
the  powerful  means  by  which  God  is  preparing  to 
bring  back  their  prosperity  like  the  waves  of  the 
sea.  In  New  England,  where,  for  a  little  time, 
the  creeds  fell  into  a  partial  disrepute,  they  are 
coming  into  remembrance  with  renovated  pow- 
er and  honor.  They  were,  during  half  her  his- 
tory, established  by  civil  and  ecclesiastical  law; 
and  through  the  latter  half,  maintained  the  confi- 
dence and  affections  of  the  orthodox  churches  to 
an  extent  equal  to  what  they  have  ever  received  any 
where.  And  though  the  ministry  did  not  subscribe 
them  as  the  condition  of  licensure  or  ordination,  they 
were  examined  closely  in  respect  to  the  doctrines 
and  experimental  religion  they  inculcate;  and  no 
man  with  Pelagian  heresies  in  head,  or  heart,  could 
any  sooner  get  into  the  orthodox  congregational 
churches  of  New  England,  than  he  could  enter  the 
Presbyterian  church. 


REGENERATION. 


Utility  of  creeds. 


The  Shorter  Catechism,  from  generation  to  gen- 
eration, has  been  taught  in  the  families  of  the  faith- 
ful, and  was  as  uniform,  and  almost  as  venerated 
an  inmate  as  the  Bible.  It  was  the  knowledge 
that  the  doctrines  of  this  catechism  were  the  stan- 
dard doctrines  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  which 
made  them  willing  to  waive  their  denominational 
peculiarities  of  church  order,  and  pour  their  floods  of 
pious  emigrants,  and  prayers  and  contributions  into 
the  Presbyterian  churches  at  the  west,  without  lifting 
a  finger  for  a  Congregational  organization — a  form  so 
dear  to  them,  that  had  it  been  assailed  on  their  own 
territory,  they  would  have  laid  life  down  in  its  defence. 
They  gave  up  their  own  church  order,  in  respect  to  the 
west,  on  the  ground  of  evangelical  expediency,  and 
their  confidence  in  the  Presbyterian  church  as  loving 
and  maintaining  the  same  doctrines  as  themselves.  In 
the  twenty-five  years  that  I  have  plead  the  cause  of  the 
missions  and  institutions  of  the  west,  and  in  my  last 
and  most  successful  efibrt,  I  never  heard,  in  a  single 
instance  the  objection  made, 'the  money  is  going  out 
of  our  own  church  to  build  up  another  denomination.' 
If  it  be  true  that  there  are  any  conspiring  to  change 
the  standards  of  our  church,  I  have  a  right  to  say, 
from  what  I  know,  that  whoever  the  conspirators 
may  be,  they  are  not  the  ministers  or  churches  of 
New  England,  nor  those  who  emigrate  from  New 
England. 

So  far  from  changing  or  tampering  with  our  stand- 
ards, we  are  called  on  by  an  intensity  of  motive  to 
hold  them  fast. 

They  were  not  at  the  time  of  their  adoption  newly 


REGENERATION.  233 


Importance  of  maintaining  creeds. 


discovered  truths — but  the  collected  and  well  bal- 
anced results  of  all  the  anterior  discussions  and  la- 
bors of  the  church  of  God.  They  were  adjusted  by 
men  of  talent,  learning,  and  piety,  and  by  the  con- 
curring wisdom  and  candor  of  so  many  minds,  as 
precluded  the  favorite  theories  of  any,  and  included 
the  doctrines  well  defined,  in  which,  amid  known 
circumstantial  discrepancies  of  opinion,  they  could  cor- 
dially agree;  thus  forming  an  imperishable  monument 
of  unadulterated  doctrine  unmixed  by  theories,  and 
at  an  equal  remove  from  Pelagian  laxness,  and  anti- 
nomian  hyper  Calvinism. 

The  Confession  itself,  and  Catechisms,  are  made 
up  of  the  most  judicious,  concise,  and  accurate  deffi- 
nitions  and  descriptions  of  doctrine,  experience,  and 
practice,  ever  placed  on  record.  Such  as  no  single 
mind  would  have  formed,  or  many  minds  without  that 
marked  providential  supervision,  which,  in  the  same 
age  that  he  gave  us  the  Bible  in  a  translation  not  to 
be  rivalled,  gave  an  epitome  of  its  contents  in  sym- 
bols, which  will  carry  down  to  the  millennium  the 
comprehensive  suffrage  of  the  faithful  in  Christ  Jesus. 

What  w^e  have  now  chief  occasion  to  guard  against 
is,  the  repetition  of  the  faults  of  other  days,  in  relying 
too  exclusively  on  the  letter  of  our  creeds,  to  prevent 
apostacy,  and  perpetuate  the  purity  and  power  of  the 
church. 

Experience  has  evinced  that  the  generations  of 
living  men  will  govern  the  world  in  spite  of  any  pos- 
sible legislation  of  those  who  have  passed  away;  and 
that  the  only  way  to  perpetuate  creeds  and  constitu- 


234  REGENERATION. 


The  means  of  maintaining  creeds. 


tjons  is,  to  perpetuate  that  nurture  and  admonition 
of  the  Lord,  which  will  make  them  as  acceptable  to 
the  coming,  as  they  are  to  the  existing  generation. 

This  is  the  import  of  the  Proverb,  that  a  living 
dog  is  better  than  a  dead  lion.  It  was  in  this  respect 
that  our  Puritan  fathers  committed  an  oversight. 
The  public  sentiment  of  their  day  was  so  united  and 
efficient,  and  their  laws  and  creeds  so  well  ordered 
and  efficacious,  that  it  seems  scarcely  to  have  occur- 
red to  them  that  they  should  not  live  forever,  or  that 
the  impulse  they  had  given  to  them  would  not  carry 
them  down  through  all  generations.  They  fell,  there- 
fore, into  an  unseemly  confidence  in  the  short  metre 
government  of  the  family  church  and  commonwealth 
by  power,  instead  of  the  kind  and  winning  influence 
of  argument  and  affection,  and  that  religious  and 
moral  culture  by  which  God  is  accustomed  to  fashion 
aright  the  heart.  The  consequence  was,  that  their 
creeds  and  ecclesiastical  laws  began  to  operate  grad- 
ually upon  necks  and  hearts  unaccustomed  to  the 
yoke,  until  at  length  away  went  colleges,  and  creeds, 
and  funds,  and  churches,  and  consecrated  property, 
by  the  force  of  laws  which  the  living  made,  in  con- 
travention of  the  sacred  intentions  of  the  dead. 

There  is  a  lesson  which  the  church  lias  been  slow 
to  learn,  and  yet  must  learn  before  her  unbroken  en- 
ergies and  cordial  and  united  action  can  be  thrown 
upon  the  world.  It  is  the  medium  between  requiring 
too  little  or  too  much.  The  mind  of  man  is  so  con- 
structed, that  exact  agreement  in  every  thing  cannot 
be  secured  by  persuasion  or  by  force.     Even  the 


REGENERATION.  235 


The  effects  of  too  much  severity. 


Romish  church,  with  the  world  in  chains  and  her  foot 
upon  the  neck  of  nations,  could  by  no  force  or  ter- 
ror prevent  the  free  born  mind  from  thinking,  or 
compel  it  to  exact  unity  of  speculation,  and  much 
less  can  it  be  done  now  and  in  our  nation.  Ecclesias- 
tical authority  has  lost  its  terrors,  and  civil  coer- 
cion is  unknown,  and  original  investigation  is  the 
order  of  the  day — proving  all  things,  to  hold  fast  that 
which  is  good.  The  result  in  any  communion,  of 
attempting  a  government  of  creeds,  verbatim  et  liter- 
atum,  would  be  formality  and  debility  and  endless 
divisions,  on  the  one  hand,  and  fanaticism  on  the  oth- 
er. The  monitory  voice  of  experience  on  this  sub- 
ject is  loud  and  urgent.  The  stern  exactions  of  the 
English  church  drove  out  the  puritans,  whose  virtues 
she  needed,  and  whose  mildly  administered  order 
might  have  benefitted  them ;  while  the  coerced  sepa- 
ration produced  the  revolution,  and  the  eccentric 
zeal  of  the  commonwealth,  and  the  formality,  and 
heresy  which  attended  the  reaction. 

A  similar  course  of  urgent  restriction  by  .creeds, 
and  of  impatient  zeal  bursting  from  it  by  revivals 
of  extravagance  and  excess,  passed  over  Germany, 
and  prepared  the  way  first  for  dead  orthodoxy,  and 
next  for  rationalism.  And  in  the  same  manner  did 
the  heresy  of  church  and.state,  in  the  time  of  Whit- 
field and  the  Tenants  produce  separations  and  ex- 
cess, which  made  the  one  fanatical,  to  the  disgrace  of 
revivals,  for  half  a  century,  and  the  other  cold  and 
formal,  till,  in  leaning  away  from  zeal  without  know- 
ledge, they  fell    first   into  dead   orthodoxy,  which 


236  REGENERATION. 


The  past  policy  of  our  church. 


was  followed  next  by  the  Pelagian,  and  Arian,  and 
Arminian  heresies. 

For  many,  years,  our  own  church  has  rested  from 
these  collisions  and  alternations  of  ultra  zeal.  United 
by  the  comprehensive,  cordial  subscription  to  the 
'doctrines  of  our  Confession,  'as  containing  the  sys- 
tem of  doctrines  taught  in  the  holy  scriptures,'  im- 
plying a  bona  fide  agreement  in  the  fundamental 
doctrines,  as  they  have  been  brought  out  in  the  con- 
troversies of  the  church,  and  expounded  in  opposition 
to  Arian,  and  Unitarian,  and  Papal,  and  Pelagian 
errors,  but  never  intended  or  understood  as  express- 
ing an  exact  agreement  in  speculations  or  language 
on  any  subject.  On  the  contrary,  those  who  framed 
the  Westminster  Confession  and  Catechisms,  and 
those  who  adopted  them  as  the  bond  of  union  to  our 
church,  differed  in  speculation  and  phraseology  on 
some  of  the  same  points  that  the  sons  of  the  church 
differ  about  now;  but  never,  till  recently,  have  they 
been  made  the  groundof  formal  accusations  of  heresy, 
and  regular  ecclesiastical  animadversion.  And  now 
the  question  cannot  be,  whether  one  side  or  the  other 
shall  be  expelled  from  the  church,  as  hypocrites  and 
heretics.  We  came  in  on  both  sides  with  the  know- 
ledge of  these  circumstantial  varieties  of  opinion  and 
language,  and  in  every  form  of  recognition  were  made 
welcome,  and  assured  of  the  protection  of  the  church; 
and  on  neither  side  can  we  be  stigmatized  or  expelled, 
without  a  breach  of  covenant  and  the  action  and  in- 
justice of  ex  post  facto  laws. 

The  only  question  is,  whether  we  will  dissolve 


REGENERATION.  037 


The  past  terms  of  subscription. 


partnership;  or  attempt  its  continuance    upon   the 
new   conditions  of  exact  agreement  in  speculation 
and  language  on  every  subject,  as  well  as  on  funda- 
mental  doctrine.     Whether  the  exposition   of  the 
Confession   which  I  have  given,  on  the  subject  of 
the  natural  ability  of  man,  as  a  free  agent,  and  his 
moral  inability,  as  a  totally  depraved  sinner;  of  ori- 
ginal sin,  as  including  federal  liability  to  the  curse 
of  the  law,  and  as  operating  to  the  production  of 
actual  sin,  not  by  force  upon  the  will,  or  any  abso- 
lute  necessity    of    nature    determining   it   to   evil, 
but  by  an   effectual,  universal  bias  to  actual   sin; 
and  of  regeneration  as  a  change  of  character,  pro- 
duced not  by  omnipotent  action  alone,  but  by  the 
immediate  and   infallible   influence  of  God's   word 
and  Spirit:  whether   the    exposition  of  these  doc- 
trines, sustained  by  the  language  of  the  Confession, 
and  corroborated  by  unbroken  exposition  from  the 
primitive  church  to  this  day— confirmed  in  the  line  of 
the  most  approved  Presbyterian  expositors,  Calvin, 
Turretin,  and  Witherspoon,  and  the  great  balance  of 
biblical  critics  and  expositors,  shall  be  reversed  and 
stigmatized   as   heresy;  and  the  imprimatur  of  the 
church  be  given  to  the  doctrine  that  man  possesses  no 
ability  of  any  kind  to  obey  the  gospel— that  original 
sin  forces  and  determines  the  will  to  actual  sin,  by  an 
absolute  necessity  of  nature— that  adult  total  depra- 
vity is  involuntary,  and  the  result  of  a  constitution 
acting  by   the  power  of  a  natural  and  necessary 
cause— and  that  regeneration  is  a  change  of  the  natu- 
ral constitution,  by  the  direct  omnipotence  of  the 
21 


238  REGENERATION. 


The  consequences  of  change. 


Spirit,  without  any  influential  agency  of  the  word  of 
God.  Such  an  exposition,  the  church,  if  it  seem  good 
to  her,  has  the  power  of  making;  but  not  the  right 
of  giv^ing  to  her  exposition  a  retrospective  action, 
to  aflect  character  and  ecclesiastical  standing,  and 
vested  rights. 

But  the  time  hastens,  as  it  would  seem,  when  our 
church  must  decide,  whether  the  examples  of  past 
abortive  effort  for  exact  identity  in  speculation  and 
language,  with  all  their  mournful  consequences,  shall 
be  for  our  warning,  or  for  our  example,  and  whether 
the  coming  fifty  years  shall  be  years  of  schism,  and 
im potency,  and  confusion  w^orse  confounded;  or 
whether,  like  a  band  of  brothers,  we  shall  move 
on  under  the  same  auspices  which  hitherto  have 
concentrated  in  our  church  the  energies  of  the  East, 
and  the  West,  and  the  North,  and  the  South,  till 
our  victorious  efforts,  with  those  of  other  denomi- 
nations, who  love  our  common  Lord,  shall,  under 
his  guidance  and  power,  terminate  in  the  universal 
victories  of  the  latter  day.  And  never  was  there  a 
moment  when  a  little  panic  of  alarm,  or  impatience 
of  feeling  may  turn  for  good  or  for  evil,  the  life- 
giving  or  destroying  waters  of  such  a  flood  down 
through  distant  generations. 

The  consequences  of  new  and  more  restricted 
terms  of  communion  are  too  legible  in  past  experi- 
ence, and  too  manifest  to  unerring  anticipation,  to 
need  labored  exposition  or  fervent  expostulation. 
And  nothing  assuredly  could  precipitate  our  beloved 
church  upon  the  disastrous  alternative,  but  such  an 


REGENERATION.  239 


The  facilities  of  concord. 


abandonment  of  heaven  as  we  do  not  believe  in;  and 
such  a  consequent  infatuation  of  alarm  and  violence 
of  passion,  as  would  disregard  alike  both  argument 
and  expostulation,  and  with  closed  eye  and  deafened 
ear  rush  upon  distruction.  An  event  which  we  cheer- 
ingly  believe  his  mercy  will  avert. 

The  means  of  our  preservation  are  obvious  and 
easy. 

There  will  be,  in  a  church  so  extensive  as  our  own, 
unavoidably  some  diversities  of  doctrinal  phraseology 
in  our  communications — theological  provincialisms  of 
men  alike  warmhearted  in  their  belief  in  the  doctrin- 
al and  experimental  views  of  our  standards.  These, 
as  they  pass  from  one  department  of  the  church  to 
another,  we  must  not  attempt  to  compel  by  force  to 
change  the  dialect  by  which,  from  maternal  lips,  the 
truth  was  breathed  into  their  infant  minds,  and  made 
effectual  in  their  conversion,  and  made  sacred  by  the 
association  of  theological  instruction. 

Such  sudden  unclothings  of  thought,  for  new  and 
unaccustomed  habiliments,  are  impossible.  And  yet, 
patience  and  kindness  on  the  part  of  the  presby- 
teries and  fathers  of  the  church,  will  easily  secure 
to  all  the  purposes  of  edification — an  assimilation 
which  years  of  discourtesy  and  contention  cannot 
compel. 

We  ought,  indeed,  to  speak  the  samethings;  but  this 
means  not  the  same  words,  but  the  same  doctrines. 
Our  Confession  and  Catechisms  were  intended  as 
concise  definitions,  and  not  as  furnishing  the  entire 
vocabulary  of  words,  in  which  their  doctrines  shall  be 


240  REGENERATION. 


The  facilities  of  concord. 


preached.  The  Bible,  itself,  does  not  confine  us  to 
its  own  phraseology;  otherwise  all  exposition  and 
preaching  would  be  superseded  by  the  simple  reading 
of  the  Bible.  And  yet,  where  the  terms  of  the  Con- 
fession are  grateful,  and  the  language  of  a  strange 
dialect  the  occasion  of  misconception  and  fear,  I  would 
not  purposely  offend  or  fail  to  edify,  by  finding  out 
acceptable  words ;  but,  as  Paul  would  do,  become  all 
things  to  all  men,  that  if  possible  I  might  save  some. 
Much  less  would  I  speak  slightly  of  our  creeds,  and 
the  phrases  which  time  and  association  had  rendered 
dear  to  the  people  of  God.  But  I  should  expect,  in 
return,  in  my  own  congregation,  the  same  liberty  of 
speech  which  I  accorded  to  others,  and  the  same  def- 
erence of  courtesy  to  familiar  phrases,  and  cherished 
associations  which  I  practised;  and  with  a  concili- 
atory spirit,  and  a  small  share  of  common  sense  and 
good  manners,  the  church  from  end  to  end  might  be 
quiet  from  all  agitation  on  the  subject. 


THUMAN  ANB  SMITH, 

PUBLISHERS,  BOOKSELLERS,  AND  STATIONERS, 

150,  MAIN-STREET,  CINCINNATI, 

Have  a  constant  supply  of  Books  in  every  department  of  Literature 
and  Science,  at  reduced  prices, 

SCHOOL  BOOKS,  in  every  variety  and  quantity,  at  the  lowest 
Eastern  prices. 

BIBLES  of  different  kinds  from  large  quarto  to  32  mo.  plain  and 
legant.  All  the  BIBLICAL  COI\LMENTARIES  in  common  use, 
Iso  a  variejy  of  HYMN  BOOKS. 

MISCELLANEOUS  WORKS,  consisting  of  Travels,  Histories, 
Bi®graphies,  Memoirs,  &c.  &c.  &c. 

NEW  PUBLICATIONS,  on  every  subject  of  interest,  regularly 
received  immediately  after  publication. 

THEOLOGICAL  BOOKS  AND  SACRED  CLASSICS  will 
be  furnished  at  wholesale  and  retail  to  Booksellers,  Clergymen,  Students 
in  divinity  and  others,  at  publisher's  prices. 

BLANK  BOOKS,  Slates,  Slate  Pencils,  Copy  Books,  Letter, 
Writing,  and  Printing  Paper,  Printing  and  Writing  Ink,  Wafers,  Seal- 
ing Wax,  and  every  article  of  Stationary. 

^  COUNTRY  MERCHANTS  and  all  others  wanting  Books  and 
Stationary,  at  vvholesale  or  retail,  are  invited  to  call  before  purchasing 
elsewhere. 

The  following  are  among  many  valuable   works  printed,  published 
and  sold  by 

TRUMAN  AND  SMITH. 
DR.  BEECHER'S  PLEA  FOR  THE  WEST. 

Second  Edition. 

From  the  Boston  Daily  Courier— Edited  by  J".   T.  Buckingham. 

A  Plea  for  the  West,  by  Lyman  Beecher,  D.  D.— Such  is  the 
brief  title  of  a  duodecimo  volume,  comprising  about  200  pages,  which 
has  recently  been  received  here  from  Cincinnati.  *  *  *  It  is  indeed 
A  Plea  for  the  West,  but  it  might  with  equal  propriety,  be  called  A  Plea 
FOR  THE  Republic.  We  have  never  read  a  more  powerful  display  of 
the  dangers  to  which  our  government  and  all  our  civil,  literary  and  reli- 
gious institutions  are  exposed,  nor  a  more  eloquent  appeal  to  the  good 
sense  and  the  patriotism  of  the  people. 

We  knov/  that  a  great  portion  of  our  citizens,  immersed  in  the  calls  of 
business,  or  occupied  with  the  con?i(ier:ition  of  political  matters  of  more 
immediate  and  personal  concern,  view  the  subject  treated  by  Dr.  Beecher 
with  ahr.ost  total  indifference;  and  we  know  tiiat  there  are  ninny  persons 
who  look  upon  his  notions  as  the  bitter  ravings  of  sectarian  ambition  and 
prejudice.  Let  all  such  persons  nwd  the  argiunent — the  unanswerable 
argument  in  our  humble  opinion,  and  we  think  they  will  not  be  dis- 
posed to  treat  the  subject  with  contempt,  or  the  author  of  the  work  with 
a  sneer. 


Truman  and  Smith' s  Publications, 


From  the  Boston  Quarterly  Observer. 
Dr.  Beecher^s  Plea  for  the  West. — Tliis  book  is  upon  a  great  subject, 
and  is  full  of  thrilling  interest  to  every  American.  We  have  been  struck 
with  the  attention  which  it  has  received  from  intelligent  editors  through- 
out the  country.  *  *  *  One  thing  is  observable  in  this  production  ; 
it  is  not  a  sectarian  work.  The  author  speaks  as  au  American,  as  a 
patriot,  as  a  christian,  and  not  as  the  abettor  of  any  political  sect. 
*  *  *  There  are  facts  and  arguments  in  this  book  that  should  be 
perfectly  familiar  to  every  American  citizen  by  whatever  name,  indica- 
tive of  religious  faith,  he  may  be  called. 

From  the  St.  Louis  Observer. 

Beecher'^s  Plea  for  the  West. — We  do  most  earnestly  hope  that  this 
book  will  be  widely  circulated  through  the  West.  We  could  wish  it 
were  in  the  cabin  of  every  one  of  our  settlers.  It  is  full  of  truth,  as  impor- 
tant as  is  the  preservation  of  our  dear-bought  and  invaluable  institutions. 

DR.  BEECHER'S  PLEA  FOR  COLLEGES,  1  rol.  18mo. 
2nd  Edition.     This  interesting  work  sliould  be  read  by  every  American. 

DR.  BEECHER'S  INSTRUCTIONS  for  Young  Christians. 
This  interesting  little  volume  has  passed  through  several  editions  in  a 
short  time. 

PETER  PARLEY'S  GEOGRAPHY  for  Children,  illustrated 
by  numerous  Majjs  and  Engravings — stereotyped.  I\lore  than  five  hun- 
dred thousand  of  liiis  valuable  little  work  have  been  sold,  and  it  is  doubt- 
less the  best  woik  of  the  kind  extant. 

THE  MALTE  BRUN  School  Geography,  illustrated  by  numerous 
original  Engravings — also,  a  large  and  valuable  Atlas,  containing  twenty 
one  Maps,  Charts  and  Tables. 

SMITH'S  PRODUCTIVE  GRAMMAR,  English  Grammar 
on  the  productive  System  of  Instruction.  By  R.  C.  Smith,  author  of 
'Practical  and  Mental  Arithmetic' 

THE  LITTLE  GRA3IMAR,  containing  the  Elementary  Prin- 
ciples of  the  English  Language,  adapted  to  the  capacity  of  the  youngest 
learner. — designed  as  an  introduction  to  the  Productive  Grammar. 

SMITH'S  PRACTICAL  AND  MENTAL  ARITHMETIC, 

on  a  new  plan,  in  which  Mental  Arithmetic  and  the  use  of  the  slate  are 
combined. 

RAY^'S  LITTLE  ARITH3IETIC,  or  the  Elements  of  Calcula- 
tion, on  the  niductive  and  analytical  Method  of  Instruction.  By  Joseph 
Ray,  Professor  of  Maiheinatics,  in  the  Woodward  College,  Cincinnati. 
This  valuable  and  cheap  little  work  has  passed  through  several  editions, 
and  it  neecis  only  to  be  known  to  be  put  into  the  hands  of  every  beginner 
in  the  study  of  arithmetic.  It  is  an  afimirable  introduction  to  Smith,  or 
any  of  the  works  in  this  department  of  education. 

THE  PICTURE  PRIMER,  or  First  Book  for  Young  Children. 

THE  PICTURE  READER,  a  Second  Book  for  Children. 

OLNEY 'S  GEOGRAPHY  AND  ATLAS,  for  Schools. 

COMSTOCK'S  NATURAL  PHILOSOPHY,  for  Schools. 

COMSTOCK'S  CHE3IISTRY,  for  Schools. 

COMSTOCK'S  BOTANY, for  Schools. 


Truman  and  Smithes  Publications. 


TO  SINGERS. — A.  NEW  MUSIC  BOOK. 

masons'  sacred  harp,  or  beauties  of  church  biusic: 

Edited  by  Lowell  Mason,  Professor  in  iJis  Boston  Academy  ofMusic^ 
Author  of  Handel  and  Haydn  Collection^  Boston  Academy''s  Col- 
lection^ &LC.  and  by  his  brother  T.  B.  Maso.v,  Professor  in  the  Eclec- 
tic Academy  of  Music :  Stereotyped  in  round  notes. 
Sold  by  the  Principal  Booksellers. 
This  new  collection  of  three  liundred  and  sixty  pages,  is  said  to  be  the 
most  interesting  and  useful  volume  of  sacred   music  extant.     In   addi- 
tion to  a  great  variety  of  Psalm  and  Hymn   Tunes,  suited  to  the  wants 
of  singing  scliools  and  christian  worshippers  of  every    denomination,  it 
furnishes  a  greater  number  of  Anthems,   Set  Pieces,  Sentences,   Solos, 
Duetts,  Sacred  Songs,  &c.,  than  any  other  similar  work;  also  a  choice  se- 
lection of  scripture  Sentences  and  Chants  for  the  Episcopal  church  service. 
The  Introductory  Rules,   or  Elements  of  Vocal   Music,  are  on  the 
inductive  plan,  and  are  unusually  full  and  complete,  extending  to  thirty- 
six  pages. 

No  ALTERATIONS  will  be  made  in  the  work,  it  being  in  a  permanent 
form.  All  successive  editions  v.'ill  be  perfectly  alike,  so  that  they  may 
be  used  together.  It  is  handsomely  printed  on  a  good,  white  paper,  and 
bound  in  a  neat,  durable  manner. 

From  the  Journnl. 
Masons''  Sacred  Harp^  or  Beauties  of  Church  Music. — This  inval- 
uable collection  by  the  brothers  Ma?on,  should  be  in  the  hands  of  tvery 
lover  of  Sacred  Music.  Professor  T.  B.  Mason  of  the  Eclectic  Academy 
of  Music,  is  a  very  able  musician.  The  senior  editor,  professor  Lowell 
Mason  of  the  Boston  Academy  of  Music,  has  long  been  esteemed  both 
in  Europe  and  America,  one  of  the  ablest  musicians  of  the  age.  He  has 
been  for  many  years  president  of  the  Boston  Handel  and  Haydn  Musi- 
cal Society,  is  author  of  the  Boston  Handel  and  Haydn  Collection  of 
Church  Music,  'a  work,'  said  the  London  Harmnnicon,  several  years 
since,  'which  is  not  surpassed  by  any  publication  of  the  kind  in  the 
world.  It  is  highly  honorable  to  American  talent,  and  shows  clearly  the 
rapid  progress  of  Americans  in  musical  science.'  He  has  since  edited 
'Choral  Harmony,' a  collection  of  anthems  and  choruses;  the  'Boston 
Collection  of  Antliems,  Choruses,'  &c.(both  published  by  the  Handel  and 
Haydn  Society;)  also  '  Lyra  Sacia,'  a  collection  of  original  and  selected 
anthems,  sentences,  chants,  &,c. ;  the  'Choir  or  Union  Collection,' the 
'Boston  Academy's  Collection  of  Church  Music,'  and  several  other  valu- 
able musical  works.  We  are  familiar  with  all  of  Mason's  publications,  and 
have  carefully  examined  the  Sacred  Harp.  The  volume  is  composed  of 
very  beautiful  flowing  melodies,  and  harmonies  of  almost  unequalled 
richness.  It  contains  the  cream  of  his  other  works,  and  may  be  justly 
entitled  the  '  beauties  of  music'  The  tunes  are  admirably  adapted  to 
the  effective  expression  of  poetry,  a  circumstafice  upon  which  the  happi- 
est effect  of  christian  psalmody  depends.  The  work  is  particularly  re- 
commended to  those  whose  object  is  to  suit  music  to  the  words  sung,  or  to 
make  music  subordinate  to  sentiment,  and  thus  eminently  conducive  to 
devotion. 


Truman  aiid  Smithes  Publications. 


masons'  sacred  harp,  or  beauties  of  church  music. 

[see  'to  sixgees,'  &c.  foeegoixg  page.] 

From  the  JVew   York  Evangelist;  edited  by  J.  Leavilt,  author  of  the 
Christian  Lyre,  a  collection  of  Psalm  and  Hymn  Tunes. 
Mason's  Sacred   Harp,  is,  what  it  is  called  in  the  title  page;aw?n/ 
select  and  useful  work ;  it  is  the  best  collection  of  chnrch  music  extant,  for 
congregations  anywhere. 

From  Mr.  Hamilton  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Churchy  director  of 
Music  in  the  Methodist  Churchy  Wheeling . 

We  are  using  'Mason's  Sacred  Harp,'  &c.  in  our  church.  I  should  be 
muc/i  pleased  to  see  it  in  o-cnem^  use — the  music  will  please  and  improve 
the  lovers  of  sacred  song.  The  tunes  are  well  suited  to  the  dififerenl  vari- 
ety of  metres,  and  it  is  a  desirable  collection  for  churches  and  schools. 

From  the  Baptist  Journal. 
Mason's  Sacred  Harp. — Having  used  this  truly  excellent  and  popular 
collection  of  music,  in  the  Baker  Street  Baptist  Church,  we  are  confi- 
dent tliat  for  elegance  of  taste,  ease  of  execution,  and  adaptation  to  pro- 
mote and  cherish  a  love  for  sacred  music,  it  is  decidedly  the  best  work  of 
the  kind  with  which  we  are  acquainted. 

From  J\Ir.  B.  S.  Fohes,  Teacher  of  Sacred  Music. — I  am  using  'Ma- 
son's Sacred  Harp'  in  ni}'  several  schools,  and  give  it  the  preference 
to  an}' other  collection  of  3Iusic  extant.  The  delightful  association  of 
words  and  harmony  are  admirably  calculated  to  accomplish  the  taste  of 
all  singers,  and  particularly  the  k^arner.  I  would  most  cordially  recom- 
mend the  work  to  all  teachers  of  singing,  and  to  others  interested  in  the 
progress  of  music. 

Mr.  Billings,  Teacher  of  Sacred  I\lusic,  says — 'Mason's  Sacred  Harp' 
is  the  most  complete,  interesting,  and  useful  collection  of  Psalm  and  Hymn 
Tunes  I  have  ever  seen.  It  is  emphatically,  sacred  music.  I  will  en- 
courage its  general  introduction. 

From  Mr.  Thomas  J.  Orr,  Teacher  of  Singing  in  the  Methodis 
Church. — I  am  using  'Mason's  Sacred  Harp,'  and  consider  it  supe- 
rior to  any  work  I  have  seen.  It  is  admirably  arlapted  to  the  use  of 
schools;  and  from  the  sacred  character  of  the  pieces,  the  purity  of  the 
melodies,  and  richness  of  harmony,  it  is  preeminently  calculated  for  the 
cultivation  of  correct  musical  taste,  piety  in  the  heart,  and  moulding  mul- 
titudes for  the  church  of  Christ. 

From  Mr.  Harris,  Teacher  of  Sacred  Music,  at  Columbus. — 'Mason's 
Sacred  Harp'  has  not  an  equal,  and  I  intend  introducing  it  into  my 
schools  as  fast  as  possible. 

PATENT  NOTES^  The  proprietors  of  'Mason's  Sacred  Harp' 
have  (contrary  to  the  express  wishes  and  views  of  the  authors)  prepared 
and  stereotyped  an  edition  of  the  work  of  232  pages,  in  PATENT 
NOTES,  under  the  belief  that  it  would  be  more  acceptable  to  Singers  in 
the  west  and  south,  vvliere  Patent  Notes  are  generally  used. 


DATE  DUE 

'!A^ 

!  1 7  201* 

uMI 

n^S! 

P 

r^^ 

.>^ 

J^ 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  U.SA 

938. '^J 


B3i 


BRITTLE  DQNOt 
PHOTOCOPY/ 


>    -^ 


II 

im 

1 

1 

9 

